The Union government has opposed Congress MP R Sudha’s challenge to the enrolment of AG Perarivalan, who was convicted in connection with the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, as an advocate. It told the Madras High Court that the Advocates Act does not permanently disqualify a person who has served a sentence and been released.
In its counter-affidavit, the Union government’s Legislative Department and the Department of Legal Affairs said the disqualification under Section 24A of the Advocates Act applies only for two years after a person’s release from prison. According to a Times of India report, the government said the statutory scheme balances the standards of the legal profession with the possibility of a convicted person’s “reform, rehabilitation and eventual re-entry into society”.
The government rejected Sudha’s argument that a person who had faced the death sentence or life imprisonment should remain permanently disqualified from becoming an advocate. It described this as an attempt to create a new category of disqualification that does not exist under Section 24A of the Advocates Act.
Creating such a category through judicial interpretation would effectively amount to legislation by the judiciary, the government argues. “If Parliament considers a wider or permanent disqualification desirable for persons convicted of particular offences, the appropriate mechanism would be legislative amendment, rather than judicial alteration of the existing provision,” it said.
The government said Parliament had consciously balanced two competing considerations — maintaining the “dignity, integrity, and standards of the legal profession,” while also recognising that a person who has undergone the statutory consequences of conviction may eventually be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
It also maintained that it had no role in Perarivalan’s enrolment process. Any allegations concerning the factual or procedural validity of the enrolment, it said, should be examined by the statutory authorities on the basis of their records.
The submissions are part of proceedings on a petition filed by Sudha challenging Perarivalan’s enrolment with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. She has sought to restrain him from practising as an advocate and has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 24A to the extent that it permits persons convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment or death to enrol as advocates after the prescribed period following their release.
The Madras High Court had on June 9 declined to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the circumstances surrounding Perarivalan’s enrolment. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed a miscellaneous petition seeking a CBI inquiry.
“No relief has been prayed against the CBI in the main petition. As a consequence, CBI is not a necessary party. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not pressed. Consequently, the writ petition against CBI stands dismissed,” the Bench said.
The court, however, directed the Union government, the Bar Council of India, and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to file their responses to the main petition.
Sudha has argued that Perarivalan had not been acquitted by the Supreme Court in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and therefore remained disqualified under the Advocates Act. She contended that “merely because Perarivalan was released from jail would not wipe off his guilt.”
Perarivalan, one of the seven convicts in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, was released by the Supreme Court in May 2022 after spending more than three decades in prison. The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing the prolonged delay in deciding remission recommendations and his lengthy incarceration.
He enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on April 24, 2026, after completing his LLB and clearing the All India Bar Examination. He formally donned the advocate’s robes on April 27 and is set to practise before the Madras High Court.
Perarivalan has said his experiences in prison motivated him to study law and that he intends to focus on prisoners’ rights, anti-death penalty litigation, and premature-release matters.
Perarivalan’s death sentence, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in 1999, was commuted to life imprisonment in 2014 because of the delay in deciding his mercy petition. The Supreme Court subsequently ordered his release in 2022.