Disposed

Muthukumar.S v. the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Madras HC8 Nov 2021WP(MD)/14262/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing the Bar Council and Police to establish stringent norms for advocate police verification. The court directed the Bar Council to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it after a hearing within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Bar Council to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 22.06.2021 after a hearing within four weeks.

Muthukumar.S Vs the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.14262 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.11.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶4

W.P.(MD).No.14262 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.11195 of 2021

¶5

S.Muthukumar .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Bar Council of Tamil nadu & Puducherry, Rep by its Secretary, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.

¶8

2.The Director General of Police, (Head of Police Force) No.4, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶9

3.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Maduari. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to frame appropriate rules or in the alternate issue guidelines to make it mandatory to submit police verification certificate from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police who in turn to issue such certificates shall verify their cell phone towers during the relevant period of study and their antecedents to be verified by getting secret statements from the public living around the residence of the applicants and their income tax filing details have to be verified and the applicants shall be required to submit the proof residence by producing relevant rental documents or from the lodges where they stayed during the relevant period by considering the petitioner's written representation dated 22.06.2021 within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kannan For R1 : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar Four R2&R3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Government Advocate

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

1/3

¶14

W.P.(MD).No.14262 of 2021

¶15

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)

¶16

This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to frame appropriate rules or in the alternate issue guidelines to make it mandatory to submit police verification certificate from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police, who in turn to issue such certificates shall verify their cell phone towers, during the relevant period of study and their antecedents to be verified by getting secret statements from the public living around the residence of the applicants and their income tax filing details have to be verified and the applicants shall be required to submit the proof of residence by producing relevant rental documents or from the lodges where they stayed during the relevant period, by considering the petitioner's written representation dated 22.06.2021.

¶17

2.The third and fourth respondents are the Regulatory Bodies for the legal education and profession in the Country and the State respectively. The apprehension of the petitioner is that there are non-practicing Advocates, who are also having a parallel avocation. Therefore, the system has to be stream lined for practicing Advocates with certain norms. As stated the Bar Council, which is the Regulatory Body is the appropriate authority. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to give his suggestions before the Bar Council. The petitioner has already sent a representation to the Bar Council dated 22.06.2021, which may be treated as a representation of the petitioner and the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, after giving him an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in the manner known to law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

3.In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

// True Copy //

¶20

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶21

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2/3

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.14262 of 2021

¶25

Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶26

To 1.The Director General of Police, (Head of Police Force) No.4, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Maduari. COPY TO: The Chairman, The Bar Council of Tamil nadu & Puducherry, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104. +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-33788[F] dated 09/11/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.A.KANNAN, Advocate ( SR-33799[F] dated 09/11/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.NIRANJAN S.KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-33876[F] dated 09/11/2021 )

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.14262 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.11195 of 2021 08.11.2021

¶28

RD(06.12.2021) 3P 7C

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

3/3

Muthukumar.S v. the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukumar.S v. the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sankar Timber Debot, Vs the State Tax Officer (Adjudication)

C. Anantha Raj, Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its

Women Advocates Association, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Selvapandi. N.A Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Abdul Rahim.M.N Vs the Dist. Collector

K.Dhanalashimi, Vs the Principal Secretary