Introduction:

The Advocates Act, 1961 contains rules and laws pertaining to advocates. The major goal of the Act is to
create a single class of legal practitioners known as “advocates.” Their major goals are to establish an All-
India Bar Council and State Bar Councils, as well as a common qualification for the bar. It also outlines
an advocate’s obligations and rights. Advocates are permitted to represent clients before all courts and
tribunals in all states of Indian territory. The advocates can only join one state Bar Council [vide Section
17(4) of the Act], although they are free to move to another State Bar Council. The Indian Bar Councils
Act has been replaced by the Advocates Act, 1961. The Advocate Act of 1961 was created in order to
carry out the recommendations of the All-India Bar Committee, which were supported by the Law
Commission’s fourteenth report in 1955.

Moral Turpitude

The legal profession has at been at the forefront of many a nation's progress. The enormity of the service
provided by the profession to the world at large has led to it being labelled a noble profession. Every
profession needs an adequate set of rules which govern the whole body of any institution within its
framework. Similarly, law, being a noble profession, needs some set of rules or guidelines to regulate its
smooth functioning. Moral Turpitude has a wide connotation which includes demeanor and of course
includes duties of the advocate which are defined under the bar council of India rules. Although moral
Turpitude is not defined anywhere in the act that amounts to moral Turpitude or not, through judicial
interpretation the court has laid down some facts regarding Moral Turpitude. Also, there are some duties
of the advocate which are conferred by the act itself or a major part of the profession. We can say that if
the advocate is not abiding by the rules of the bar or act then that also leads to the misconduct of the
advocate which again constitutes a moral Turpitude. Through several judgments and on various occasions
the court has asserted that the nature of the matter or fact of the case will decide the moral Turpitude
hence there is no definition of Moral Turpitude.

Following is the analysis of Moral Turpitude as a ground for disqualification of the advocate which places
an embargo on the advocate to be enrolled with the bar if he is convicted under the Advocates act 1961
the relevant section where the moral Turpitude is enumerated in section 24 A clause (a) (b) of advocate
act 1961 which says that No person shall be admitted as an advocate on a State roll-(a) If he is convicted
of an offence involving moral turpitude, (c) If he is dismissed or removed from employment or office
under the state on any charge involving moral turpitude’ this section talks about pre or post dismissal
under moral Turpitude where a lawyer is convicted under pre-enrollment than he has to wait for 2 years
and in most scenario, the same thing will be followed.

Analysis of the judgements:

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (1996)

Pawan Kumar was appointed as an ad hoc worker within the workplace with the condition that he is
going to be permanent to the workplace subject to the verification of his antecedent, but at the time of
verification the SP found that he was earlier condemned of the offence and same was forwarded to the
recruiting authority and it was upheld that he was convicted under 294 IPC thus committed moral
turpitude, therefore, same was taken up to supreme court and the court had held that section 294 IPC
doesn’t come under moral Turpitude, therefore, it was an outlaw or discretionary by the state to laid-off
him. afterwards during this case court came up with the definition of moral Turpitude “is an expression
that is employed in legal as conjointly social group formulation to explain the conduct that is inherently
base, vile, depraved or having any affiliation showing depravity.”

Following term ought to be normally applied to judgment that whether or not such offence embraces
Moral Turpitude or not

• Whether an act leading to conviction was such might shock the moral conscience of the
society generally

• The motive that crystal rectifier to the act was based on

• Whether the wrongdoer can be thought of to be of a depraved character or an individual

who was to be looked down on by society.

Sushil Kumar Singhal v regional manager Punjab national bank (2010)

• Moral turpitude suggests that [as Per Black's Law lexicon (8th Edn.,2004): -

"Conduct that's contrary to justice, honesty, or morality. within the space of legal ethics, offences
involving moral turpitude like fraud or breach of trust. conjointly termed moral depravity.
• Moral turpitude suggests that in general shameful wickedness- therefore extreme a departure
from normal standards of honest, sensible morals, justice, or ethics be stunning to the conscience of the
community. it's conjointly been outlined as an act of unworthiness, vileness, or depravity within the non-
public and social duties that one person owes to a different, or society generally, contrary to the accepted
and customary rule of right and duty between folks."

• In read of the top of, it's evident that moral turpitude suggests something contrary to honesty,
modesty, or sensible morals. It suggests vileness and depravity. The conviction of an individual during a
crime involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to be indulged in
shameful, wicked, and base activities.

Duties of the advocate:

The bar council of India and the state bar council that states the most basic and arbiter, conjointly once
lawyers don't seem to be following the rules enumerated within the act and do something that is against
the ethicality of the profession that quantifies to misconduct or moral Turpitude -

• An advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and whereas otherwise acting before a
court, conduct himself with dignity and self-respect, he shall not be servile and whenever there's correct
ground for serious grievance against a judicial officer, it shall be his right and duty to submit his
grievance to correct authorities.[1][2]

• An advocate shall not influence the choice of a court by any outlaw or improper suggests that
private communications with choose concerning unfinished case square measure prohibited.

• An advocate shall not enter look, act plead or follow in any approach before a court, tribunal or
authority mentioned in section 30 of the act, if the only or any member thereof is expounded to be an
advocate as a father, grandfather, son, grandson, uncle etc.[3]

• An advocate shall not seem in or before any court of judicature or the other authority for or
against a corporation or an establishment, society or corporation, if he's a member of the executive
committee of such organization or establishment, society or corporation, a government committee, by no
matter name it's going to be referred to as it's going to refer to as, shall embrace any committee or body of
a person that, for the nowadays is unconditional with the final management of the affairs of the
organization or establishment, society or corporation.[4]

• An advocate mustn't act or plead in any matter in which he is peculiarly interested.[5]

• It shall be the duty of an advocate fearlessly to uphold the interests of his client by all fair and
honourable means without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or any other. He shall
defend a person accused of a crime regardless of his opinion as to the accused, bearing in mind that his
loyalty is to the law which requires that no man should be convicted without adequate evidence.[6]

24A. Disqualification for enrollment - (1). no one shall be admitted as an advocate on a State roll-

(a) If he's condemned of an offence involving moral turpitude,

(b) if he's condemned of an offence under the provisions of the untouchability (offences) act
1955

(c) If he's fired or off from employment or workplace under the state on any charge involving
moral turpitude

Provided that the disqualification of enrollment as aforementioned shall stop to possess impact once the
amount of 2 years has marched on since his (release or dismissal)[7]

Kameswara Rao vs Bar Council of The State Of Andhra[8]

in this case, Bala Kameshwara Rao was retired obligatorily from the post of court master as a disciplinary
measure on the premise of proven misconduct and afterwards listed himself with the bar council of
Andhra Pradesh however his application was rejected by the bar on the ground enumerated in section 24A
clause (a),(b),(c) and amendment respect to section 24A was created by the bar debarring the advocate
from practice under was guilty under the moral Turpitude, same was challenged before the high court of
Andhra Pradesh thus it had been contended by the respondent that bar council has power to create rules
consistent with the act under section 28 of the advocate act, however high court determined that its ultra-
virus section 24A, therefore, its arbitrary, so high court declared the amendment as unconstitutional.

Section 28 power to create rules,

1) A state bar council could build rules to hold out the purpose of this chapter,

2) Especially, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding power, such rules could give for –

a) the time within that and kind during which an advocate shall specific his intention for the
entry of his name within the roll of a State Bar Council under section 20
 b) the shape during which an application shall be created to the Bar Council for admission as an
advocate on its roll and therefore the manner during which such application shall be disposed
of by the enrolment committee of the Bar Council

c) the conditions subject to that an individual could also be admitted as an advocate on any
such roll;

d) the instalments during which the enrolment fee could also be paid.

3) No rules created under this Chapter shall have an impact unless they need to be approved by the
Bar Council of Asian nations.

Hence the court concluded that it is discretionary and held unconstitutionally, that the petitioner was
allowed to list within the bar. Essentially Andhra bar resorted to clause (d) using vide Resolution No.20
of 1999 and debarred the advocates from practicing who were convicted under the act however supreme
court held it unconstitutional.

Moral turpitude as a ground for disqualification:

The term ‘Moral Turpitude” even though isn't outlined in any explicit legislation however Supreme court
must return up with the interpretation of the term that's enumerated within the “Pawan Kumar v state of
Haryana” case and recognized the rule on what amounts to moral Turpitude but it’s not thoroughgoing,
several offences are still out facet the reach of the moral Turpitude. In several cases, the Supreme court
has determined that grievous hurt doesn’t seem to be noncommissioned within the moral Turpitude thus
in and of itself no straight jacket formula to assess the ethical Turpitude as the supreme court has declared
in several judgement that it'll dissent on pertaining matter. If we tend to go by the section 24A of the
advocate act that it doesn’t disclose. What amount to moral Turpitude however simply merely lay down
the rule that if somebody is guilty under these circumstances shall not be allowed to recruit with bar and
therefore the precondition states that disqualification for enrolment as same shall stop to possess impact
once an amount of 2 years has gone on since his dismissal or removal it implies that anyone was guilty
under the Act will apply to the bar after 2 years. Powers are bestowed upon the Bar Council of India to
make necessary rules concerning the act for sleek functioning and regulate the conduct of the advocate
under section 49 of the Advocates act at the same time state bar council has the power to create rules
under section 28 concerning the act that subject to the restriction as neither bar council of India nor state
bar will make laws on the far side its jurisdiction there's conjointly embargo placed thereon, under section
49A central government will create rules subject enumerated section 49 and 28 of the act and can also
direct the BCI or any state bar council devise the rule concerning specific or whole bar council. BCI has
all the authority concerning the regulation of the legal fraternity that however ought to be regulated and if
there's one thing that is against the moral conscience of the society so it will inhibit it through creating
necessary changes or change within the act. professional ethics is the core of each individual
establishment that decides or regulates the conduct of each profession so ethical Turpitude has wide
connotations within the term itself.

Conclusion: Moral Turpitude is the conduct or demeanor of the advocate and every common man but
according to the advocate act we analyze the moral Turpitude, then it’s quite different from the other
profession being at liberty. because if somebody is convicted under moral Turpitude in course of
employment he shall not be reinstated and remain out from the work forever but under section 24A of the
advocate act it is very clear on the issue that if a person is convicted under moral Turpitude then he shall
be allowed to practice after 2 years from the punishment. It appears to be quite arbitrary in comparison to
other professionals but it’s not arbitrary therefore conforms to the constitution, there are so many
objections which has been raised regarding this particular issue but the supreme court didn’t give any
directions and held validly. Also, after a decade, the Supreme court has considered the matter concerning
amendment in section 24A and subsequently direct the central government of India to

come up with the new regulation as other professionals don’t recognize reinstatement after the conviction
under moral Turpitude then why advocate so? The supreme court also asked for a law commission to
regulate the guidelines as to even committing a heinous crime anybody is allowed to enroll with the bar
while other people lose their job in other sectors. this is also pertinent to say that being a noble profession
there should not be any glitches and shortcomings which tarnish the reputation of the profession hence the
act needs to be amended by the legislature about the principle of equality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACTS

· Advocate act 1961

· Bar council of India rules

LINKS

· https://indiankanoon.org/

· https://www.casemine.com/

[1] Chapter – II Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette

[2] O.P.Sharma & Ors vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana on 9 May, 2011

[3] S.Sengkodi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 March, 2009

[4] Rules on standards of professional (Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI Rules)
[5] Ms.V.Preetha (Advocate) vs Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2017

[6] V.P.Raman vs National Medical Commission on 20 April, 2021

[7] 2001 (6) ALD 224

[8]Kameswara Rao vs Bar Council Of The State Of Andhra