Chennai’s legal fraternity is abuzz after Congress parliamentarian R. Sudha penned a scathing letter to President Droupadi Murmu, calling for the revocation of AG Perarivalan’s advocate registration by the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Bar Council. Describing the enrollment date of April 27 as a stain on judicial legacy, Sudha warns that it erodes public trust in the legal system.
The backdrop is the infamous Rajiv Gandhi murder case, where Perarivalan was sentenced to life but later freed by Supreme Court order following a gubernatorial pardon delayed for decades. Section 24A of the 1961 Advocates Act explicitly disqualifies those convicted of serious crimes from practicing law for two years after release—a rule Sudha insists cannot be overlooked for LTTE-linked offenders.
Sudha doesn’t stop at legal arguments; she slams the procedural lapses. The Bar Council’s nod came abruptly after months of pendency, just as a new council’s elections concluded, effectively dissolving the old one’s mandate. ‘How can lame-duck officials greenlight such a controversial entry?’ she asks, pushing for a Madras High Court bench to review amid an ongoing related petition.
Her missive highlights broader implications: Does forgiveness equate to forgetting heinous crimes? As Congress ramps up its anti-LTTE rhetoric ahead of polls, this could fuel a national discourse on lawyer eligibility. Stakeholders await the Bar Council’s rebuttal, while Perarivalan’s supporters decry it as political vendetta. In the end, this saga may redefine boundaries between redemption and responsibility in India’s legal arena.
