Congress MP R. Sudha has written to President Droupadi Murmu seeking the cancellation of A.G. Perarivalan's enrolment as an advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, calling his admission to the bar on 27 April a "black day in the judicial history of the nation." The letter, sent from Chennai, urges the President to intervene and ensure accountability in what Sudha described as a deeply troubling decision.

Background: Who Is Perarivalan

A.G. Perarivalan was convicted in connection with the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. He was later released following a Supreme Court order that cited inordinate delay in deciding his remission plea under Article 161 of the Constitution. His enrolment as an advocate on 27 April has since triggered significant political and legal controversy.

Key Objections Raised

In her detailed representation, Sudha pointed to Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, which bars individuals convicted of certain offences from enrolling as advocates for two years after completion of their sentence. While acknowledging this legal provision, she contended that it should not be "blindly applied" in cases involving individuals convicted of grave offences — particularly those linked to banned organisations such as the LTTE.

Sudha further argued that allowing Perarivalan to practise law would be "demoralising" for young entrants to the legal profession and deeply distressing for the families of those killed in the assassination. She urged the President to intervene and ensure accountability in the matter.

Procedural Concerns Over Bar Council Authority

Raising procedural questions, the Congress MP challenged the authority of the current Bar Council to carry out enrolments at all. She claimed that existing office-bearers had effectively ceased to hold office following the conclusion of elections for a new council. "When a new body is yet to assume charge, how could the outgoing members proceed with such an important enrolment?" she asked, suggesting possible undue haste in clearing Perarivalan's application.

Sudha also alleged that the enrolment application had remained pending for over six months before being approved abruptly, and called for an independent inquiry — preferably by a retired judge — to examine the circumstances leading to the decision.

Madras High Court and Broader Implications

Sudha additionally urged that the issue be referred to a larger Bench of the Madras High Court, which is currently examining a related matter concerning the enrolment of individuals with pending criminal cases into the legal profession. This comes amid a broader national debate over whether the bar enrolment process adequately screens for the gravity of past offences, beyond the minimum statutory bar under the Advocates Act.

With the matter now formally before the President and the Madras High Court already seized of a related question, the legal and political fallout from Perarivalan's enrolment is unlikely to subside quickly.