Madras High Court Directs Bar Councils to Collect Data on Lawyers with Criminal Cases
The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP) to engage competent researchers to collect empirical data on the number of advocates facing criminal cases. Justice D. Bharata Chakravarty, who handles criminal case quash petitions, made the observation after noting that 30 to 40 criminal cases involving practicing advocates come up almost every working day.
The court expressed concern over the increasing trend of lawyers being involved in criminal cases. It noted that a significant number of petitions are filed daily by advocates or law graduates seeking to quash criminal cases against them. The judge observed that in some instances, advocates accused of criminal activities eventually become office bearers or leaders of Bar Associations.
“When persons facing multiple criminal prosecution become members of the Bar, and thereafter aspire to occupy leadership positions in Bar Associations, the issue assumes a different dimension. Advocates are officers of the court and constitute an integral part of the justice delivery system,” the judge wrote in his order. He added that if a large section of lawyers is involved in criminal cases, it could affect the image of the bar and the credibility of the justice delivery system.
The court clarified that its observations were not directed at any individual advocate but were purely institutional. It stated that a comprehensive and objective study of the situation is imperative. As a first step, the court suo motu impleaded the BCI and BCTNP as parties to a pending case and sought their views on conducting a survey.
The judge granted time until August 24, 2026, for the Bar Councils to make submissions. “Upon considering the response of the newly impleaded respondents, this court shall issue further directions as may be necessary regarding the manner in which the relevant data is to be collected, analysed and placed before this court for considering the larger issues involved,” the judge concluded.
