A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the enrolment of A.G. Perarivalan, one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, as an advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Petitioner B. Ravi Raja, a resident of Nungambakkam, claimed that the Supreme Court did not acquit Perarivalan but had only released him using extraordinary constitutional relief under Article 142 of the Constitution. He pointed out that, as per the Advocates Act, no person shall be admitted as an advocate on the State roll if convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
Raja said that the Bar Council’s power of enrolment is coupled with a duty to scrutinise the antecedents of the applicant, the existence of disqualifications, and overall fitness to enter the profession.
The petitioner has sought directions to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to restrict Perarivalan from practising as an advocate.
He also sought interim relief to suspend Perarivalan’s enrolment till the disposal of the petition filed by him.
Raja contended that Perarivalan, who was convicted in the assassination case of former PM Rajiv Gandhi and had served more than 30 years in prison as a life convict, was released by the Supreme Court citing an inordinate delay in deciding his mercy petition by the Governor.
Admitting the petition on May 6, a vacation bench of Justice S. Soundar and Justice P.B. Balaji directed the BCI to respond to the plea and adjourned the hearing until after the summer vacation.
Perarivalan enrolled as an advocate on April 24 with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (TNCC) legal wing vice-president S.K. Nawaz has opposed Perarivalan’s enrolment. He urged the Bar Council to remove him and debar him from practising as a lawyer, stating, “If not, we will fight this legally.”
It is pertinent to note that Mayiladuthurai Lok Sabha MP and advocate practising in the Madras High Court, R. Sudha, wrote a letter to the President of India seeking immediate suspension of the enrolment of A.G. Perarivalan as an advocate by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, while also calling for a broader examination of the legal framework governing the entry of convicted persons into the legal profession.
In her letter, Sudha said that she was writing “not with ink, but with the blood and rage of every right-thinking lawyer and a conscientious person from every corner of this nation”, indicating the gravity with which the issue is viewed within sections of the legal community.
https://x.com/AdvtSudha/status/2049415257890988472?s=20
She demanded that the issue be taken suo motu and referred to a larger bench of the Madras High Court to be heard along with a similar pending case on enrolling people facing criminal cases. Describing April 27, when Perarivalan was enrolled, as a “Black Day”, Sudha said Section 24A, which prevents enrolment of a convict as an advocate for two years, cannot be blindly relied upon to allow persons like Perarivalan, who was a member of the internationally banned terrorist outfit LTTE and was convicted in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
She further said, “While the Bar Council itself is yet to be elected, how can a team whose tenure as office-bearers has ceased conduct an enrolment function on April 27, 2026? What is the tearing hurry? Is it to benefit this one convict and allow him to be enrolled as an advocate?”
In her nine-page letter on her Lok Sabha Member letterhead, Sudha sought the following actions from the President of India:
Refer the enrolment of A.G. Perarivalan, a convict in the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, to a larger bench of the Madras High Court hearing a related case on enrolling people with pending criminal cases.
Suspend the enrolment of A.G. Perarivalan till the larger bench delivers its verdict and prohibit him from appearing before any court of law, tribunal, commission, or quasi-judicial proceeding representing anyone.
Read Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 in its true letter and spirit and cancel the enrolment of A.G. Perarivalan as an advocate.
Order an inquiry into how A.G. Perarivalan was allowed to advertise in an inconspicuous manner and was enrolled by a set of office-bearers whose tenure had lapsed, in a hurried manner.
Order an inquiry into how A.G. Perarivalan’s enrolment application was kept on hold for more than six months before being cleared for enrolment in a hurried manner on April 27, 2026.
Appoint a retired High Court judge to conduct the probe and prohibit A.G. Perarivalan from appearing before any court of law, tribunal, commission, or quasi-judicial proceeding representing anyone.
Ascertain whether the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, delivered his enrolment address fully aware that A.G. Perarivalan was among those listed to be administered the advocate’s oath.
Venting their opposition to Perarivalan’s enrolment, a group of lawyers staged a protest by striking themselves with footwear on their heads while holding Perarivalan’s images.
