The Union government has informed the Madras High Court that there is no permanent legal impediment preventing A G Perarivalan from enrolling as an advocate, arguing that the relevant disqualification under the Advocates Act ceases after a specified period following release or remission.
The Centre made the submission in response to a petition challenging Perarivalan’s enrolment as an advocate. The case concerns the interpretation of Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, which deals with disqualification for enrolment on the rolls of advocates.
According to the Union government’s submission, a person who has previously been sentenced to death or life imprisonment is not permanently barred from entering the legal profession. The Centre said the statutory disqualification ceases two years after the person’s release, dismissal or removal.
The government’s position is significant because Perarivalan was convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and was released from prison in 2022 following a Supreme Court order. He subsequently enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on April 27, 2026.
The latest submission was made in proceedings arising from petitions challenging his enrolment. One of the challenges was filed by Congress MP R Sudha, who questioned whether a person convicted in a serious criminal case could be permitted to enter the legal profession.
The petitioner had argued that the remission or release granted to Perarivalan did not erase the underlying conviction. The plea also questioned the interpretation of Section 24A of the Advocates Act and sought legal action concerning his enrolment.
The Centre, however, rejected the argument that a person who had once faced a death sentence or life imprisonment should remain permanently disqualified from becoming an advocate. According to the government's interpretation, the law provides a specific period after which the statutory disqualification no longer operates.
The Centre also argued that the legal framework balances professional standards with the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This interpretation is now part of the ongoing proceedings before the Madras High Court.
The issue has generated legal debate because Perarivalan's case involves both his past conviction and the legal consequences of his release. The petitioners challenging his enrolment have argued that the seriousness of the original offence and the continuing existence of the conviction should be considered while determining eligibility to practise law.
In June 2026, the Madras High Court had already considered a plea seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Perarivalan’s enrolment. The court found no basis at that stage for ordering a CBI investigation and observed that there was no material indicating fraud in the enrolment process.
The court had also noted the significance of the two-year provision contained in Section 24A. During the June proceedings, the bench observed that the statutory bar ceases two years after release and noted that Perarivalan had been released in 2022.
The legal proceedings therefore involve questions concerning the interpretation of the Advocates Act, the effect of remission and release, and the authority of Bar Councils to determine eligibility for enrolment.
Perarivalan’s enrolment took place after the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry considered his application. His admission to the rolls has subsequently been challenged before the Madras High Court.
The petitions have raised broader questions about whether past convictions should permanently prevent a person from entering a regulated profession. The Centre's latest submission takes the position that the law does not impose such a permanent restriction in circumstances covered by Section 24A.
The government’s argument is based on the statutory framework rather than on the nature of the individual case. It maintains that once the prescribed period following release or remission has passed, the specific disqualification under the provision no longer prevents enrolment.
The matter remains subject to the Madras High Court’s consideration. The Centre’s submission does not by itself constitute a final judicial ruling on every issue raised by the petitions.
The case has attracted attention because Perarivalan was one of the convicts in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The Supreme Court released him in 2022 after exercising its constitutional powers in the case. His subsequent enrolment as an advocate has now become the subject of separate legal proceedings.
The petitioners have questioned the legality of the enrolment and have sought restrictions on his ability to practise as an advocate. Earlier proceedings also included requests for an investigation into the enrolment process, but the Madras High Court declined to order a CBI probe at that stage.
The current proceedings are therefore focused on the statutory eligibility of Perarivalan to remain enrolled as an advocate and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Advocates Act.
The Centre’s latest position is that the statutory disqualification is temporary rather than permanent. It has told the court that the two-year period mentioned in the law has already passed in Perarivalan’s case, given his release in 2022.
The final outcome will depend on the Madras High Court’s consideration of the submissions made by the Centre, the petitioners and the other concerned authorities, including the Bar Councils.
Until the court issues a final decision on the challenges before it, the Centre’s statement should be understood as its legal position in the proceedings rather than as a final determination of all questions surrounding Perarivalan’s enrolment.
The case is being closely followed because it involves the intersection of criminal law, rehabilitation, professional regulation and the statutory rules governing admission to the legal profession.
For now, the key development is the Centre’s submission that Section 24A of the Advocates Act does not permanently prevent a released convict from enrolling as an advocate once the statutory disqualification period has expired. Perarivalan’s enrolment and the petitions challenging it remain part of the ongoing legal proceedings before the Madras High Court.
Sources
Times of India reported the Centre’s submission before the Madras High Court regarding the two-year disqualification period under the Advocates Act.
New Indian Express reported the earlier Madras High Court proceedings concerning the challenge to Perarivalan’s enrolment and the Centre’s response.
LiveLaw reported the court’s June observations concerning Section 24A and the two-year period after release.
DT Next reported that Perarivalan enrolled as an advocate on April 27, 2026, and covered the earlier court proceedings challenging his enrolment.
