Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bar Council Judgment
Bar Council Judgment
11.6.2015
Pronounced on:
19.6.2015
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Writ Petition No.10560 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Mr.A.Santhos Yadav
Vs
...Petitioner
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to process the petitioner's
application for enrolment as an advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
submitted on 28.11.2014 vide Application No.2550 of 2014 without reference to the
case registered in F.I.R.No. 307 of 2014 dated 4.10.2014 on the file of the third
respondent forthwith and enroll the petitioner as an advocate.
For Petitioner :
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J
The petitioner, whose application for enrolment as an advocate has been
withheld by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, has come up with the above writ
petition seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to
process his application.
2. Heard Mr.Raja Kalifullah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent - Bar
Council and Mr.I.Arockiasamy, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2
and 3.
3.
The
petitioner
completed
his
decree
in
Law
from
Dr.Ambedkar
Penal Code.'
7. Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether
the participation of a person in an agitation to advance a political cause and the
burning of an effigy as part of the agitation, could be taken to be something that
will make the offender, a person with criminal background so as to dis-entitle him
from getting enrolled as an advocate or not.
8. Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code, with which the petitioner is charged,
reads as follows :
"Negligent
conduct
with
respect
to
fire
or
or
combustible
does,
with
fire
any
public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals. Section 285 itself is
grouped along with offences dealing with negligence. The manner in which Section
285 is worded would show that doing anything with fire or any combustible matter
any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause
hurt or injury to any other person, is made punishable. Therefore, acting rashly or
negligently so as to endanger human life or in a manner likely to cause hurt or
injury, is a sine qua non for making an act come within the meaning of Section 285.
10. Since there is no provision in the IPC, which makes the burning of effigies
a punishable offence, the police invariably charge persons, who burn effigies, only
for an offence under Section 285 or at the most under Section 286. In the case on
hand, the very final report filed by the police shows that the petitioner was charged
with an offence under Section 285 only for the act of burning the effigy of a political
leader.
11. It may be of interest to note that the burning of effigies has its roots in
history, culture as well as the religion of several countries throughout the world.
12. Megha Bhagat, who was a disciple of Tulsidas - the author of Ram
Charitha Manas, seems to have organized Ram Leela Shows way back in the early
17th Century. Ever since then, Ram Leelas are performed in various parts of the
country. On the last day of the Show, the effigy of Ravana is burnt and the triumph
of good over evil is celebrated by this last act of burning of the effigy of Ravana.
13. At about the same time, in the early 17th Century, a similar practice
appears to have emerged in England. It is stated that the Catholic dissident Guy
Fawkes and 12 of his friends hatched a conspiracy to blow up King James I of
burning of effigies, if no other mischief was associated with it. He also quoted
Rajaji's advice to the critics of effigy burning and black flags, which goes as follows:
"Go and have a cold shower. All your excitement
will be washed away."
16. Therefore, in the context of the fact that the only crime alleged to have
been committed by the petitioner as per the final report filed by the police, is the
burning of the effigy of a political leader and also in the light of the fact that the
said act is sought to be brought within the purview of Section 285 of the IPC in the
absence of any specific provision relating to burning of effigies, we are of the
considered view that the petitioner cannot be stated to be a person with criminal
background. It is seen from the orders passed by N.Kirubakaran,J on various dates
in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14573 of 2014 that what the learned Judge was concerned
about (with which, we respectfully agree) was only the entry of persons with
criminal background into the profession of law, so as to have a protective gear
around themselves from the Law Enforcing Machinery. Persons, charged with the
allegation of burning effigies of political leaders to advance either the cause of a
political party or the cause of a political philosophy, cannot be said to belong to the
category of persons, whose entry into the profession should be barred.
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J
AND
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J
RS
17. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the Bar
Council to process the application of the petitioner without reference to the
complaint in Cr.No.307 of 2014 on the file of the third respondent and take
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
(V.R.S.J.) (K.R.C.B.J.)
19-6-2015
To
1.The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-104.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, Villupuram District.
3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, E-1 Thirukoilur Post, Villupuram District.
ORDER IN
WP.No.10560 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015