Advocate Suppresses Criminal Case Against Him During Enrolment: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Enrolment

Update: 2021-12-14 08:28 GMT
story

Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Madras High Court's order confirming the Bar Council of India's decision to cancel the enrolment of an Advocate who suppressed the fact of pending criminal case against him at the time of enrolment.A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna issued the direction in a special leave petition challenging Madras High Court's order upholding...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Madras High Court's order confirming the Bar Council of India's decision to cancel the enrolment of an Advocate who suppressed the fact of pending criminal case against him at the time of enrolment.

A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna issued the direction in a special leave petition challenging Madras High Court's order upholding Bar Council of India's decision to cancel an Advocate's enrolment due to non-disclosure of a criminal case pending against him.

The Bench observed that at the time when the petitioner submitted an application for enrolment as an Advocate, he suppressed the material fact of pending criminal case against him. It was also found that he even continued as a partner in a Chartered Accountant Firm.

"Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances when the petitioner was removed by the Bar Council under proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act and when the same is confirmed by the High Court it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error." the Bench said.

The present petitioner got enrolled as an Advocate and was removed by the Bar Council of India on a reference made by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry. The Madras High Court through the impugned order upheld the order passed by the Bar Council of India.

The High Court noted that the petitioner himself admitted that he was a sleeping partner of a Chartered Accountant Firm at the time of enrolment. Moreover, a criminal case was pending against him for bigamy and that was not disclosed.

The High Court had observed that suppression of material is a very serious issue. Therefore, the order passed by the Bar Council of India is as per Rules and did not suffer from any illegality.

The High Court had also made note of Supreme Court's recent order declining to entertain a writ petition filed by a Doctor for suppression of a criminal case pending against him at the time of enrollment as an Advocate.

Case Title: P Mohanasundaram vs State of Tamil Nadu 

Click Here To Read/Download Order


Tags:    

Similar News