The Madras High Court has posed a series of questions to the Union Government on the steps taken to implement the Supreme Court’s order which directed it to introduce pre-enrolment training for law graduates in the country.
Justice N. Kirubakaran passed the interim order on a writ petition filed by a dismissed banker, M.A. Balasubramanian, who sought a direction to the Bar Council to enrol him. Expressing concern over the falling standards of the legal profession, the Judge raised ten queries including whether persons accused of offences were permitted to enter law college; whether the procedure prescribed by the Bar Council for enrolment was faulty and not effective and adequate; what steps have been taken or to be taken by the Bar Council to check the candidates’ antecedents.
In his interim order to the respondents, including the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the Judge asked what steps had been taken or contemplated to weed out from the legal profession members accused of offence/offences. He also wanted the Bar Councils to explain the steps taken to arrest falling standards in the legal profession.
The Judge raised another question on whether law colleges were allowing government servants and other employees to do law degree simultaneously while they are in employment?
Justice Kirubakaran directed the Central Government, Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to file their counter-affidavits.
In his petition, Mr. Balasubramanian said though he possessed a valid law degree, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu had refused to enrol him. Hence he sought a direction to the Bar Council to include him in its rolls in the next enrolment function.
Mr. Balasubramanian joined a nationalised bank in August 1977. On the grounds of gross violation of bank norms and for acting detrimental to the bank’s interests, he was removed from the bank on March 26, 2011. Later, he approached the Bar Council for enrolment. The Bar Council rejected his application on the ground that his present condition was a disqualification under the Advocates’ Act. Hence he preferred the present writ petition.
