Disqualification for Enrolment: Section 24A and the Two-Year Rule
Chapter Three
Syllabus topic 1.1 Enrolment of Lawyers, procedure
Pages 11 to 15 of 355
In one line
Section 24A keeps three kinds of person off the roll: someone convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, someone convicted under the untouchability law, and someone dismissed from State employment on a charge involving moral turpitude.
In exam wording: section 24A of the Advocates Act 1961 lays down the disqualifications for enrolment as an advocate, which cease to have effect after two years have elapsed from release, dismissal or removal, and which do not apply to a person dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act 1958.
Why a separate section
Section 24 asks whether a person has the qualifications. Section 24A asks a different question: whether, qualified or not, there is something in his past that should keep him out.
The distinction matters because the two sections work in opposite directions and a candidate must clear both. A person can hold a first-class degree from the best recognised law faculty in the country, be an Indian citizen of twenty-five with the fee in hand, and still be barred by section 24A.
Section 24A was inserted by the Advocates (Amendment) Act 1973 with effect from 31 January 1974. It was not in the Act as passed.
The provision itself
Section 24A(1): "No person shall be admitted as an advocate on a State roll."
(a) if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude;
(b) if he is convicted of an offence under the provisions of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955;
(c) if he is dismissed or removed from employment or office under the State on any charge involving moral turpitude. With an Explanation: "In this clause, the expression 'State' shall have the meaning assigned to it under article 12 of the Constitution."
Then the proviso: "Provided that the disqualification for enrolment as aforesaid shall cease to have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his released or dismissal or, as the case may be, removal."
Section 24A(2): "Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person who having been found guilty is dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958."
Broken down
Take the elements one at a time, because the section is short and every word in it is doing work.
"Convicted." Not charged, not arrested, not prosecuted. A pending prosecution is not a disqualification under this section. Conviction means a finding of guilt by a court that has not been set aside.
"An offence involving moral turpitude." The Act does not define moral turpitude, and this is the phrase that produces the argument. The working sense is conduct that is inherently base, vile or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rule of right and duty between people. Cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and offences of dishonesty are the standard examples. A conviction for a road traffic offence or a technical regulatory breach ordinarily is not.
Disqualification for Enrolment: Section 24A and the Two-Year Rule
Clause (b) needs no moral turpitude at all. A conviction under the Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955 disqualifies by itself, without any inquiry into whether the offence involved moral turpitude. That Act is now titled the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, and clause (b) refers to it by its original name because the clause has not been re-typeset.
Clause (c) reaches employment, not crime. A person dismissed or removed from employment or office under the State on a charge involving moral turpitude is disqualified even though no court has convicted him. The Explanation ties "State" to Article 12 of the Constitution, which covers the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. So dismissal from a public sector body that answers the Article 12 test counts; dismissal from a private firm does not.
Note also that clause (c) says dismissed or removed. A person who resigns before the inquiry concludes, or whose service is terminated by some lesser order, is not within it.
The two-year proviso
The disqualification is temporary. It ceases to have effect after two years have elapsed since release, dismissal or removal.
The starting point is different for each clause and students get this wrong.
- For clauses (a) and (b), the two years run from release. If the person was sentenced to imprisonment, that means release from prison, so the clock does not start on conviction.
- For clause (c), the two years run from dismissal or removal.
So a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to three years' imprisonment is disqualified for the three years inside and two years after, five years in all from conviction. A person convicted and fined, with no imprisonment, is disqualified for two years from the conviction, since there is no custody from which to be released.
Section 24A(2): the probation exception
The Probation of Offenders Act 1958 lets a court, instead of sentencing certain offenders, release them after admonition or on a bond of good behaviour. Section 12 of that Act provides that a person so dealt with shall not suffer disqualification attaching to a conviction under any other law.
Section 24A(2) says the same thing for this Act in terms: sub-section (1) does not apply to a person who, having been found guilty, is dealt with under that Act. So a person found guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude but released on probation is not disqualified from enrolment, and is not disqualified for two years either, because sub-section (1) never applies to him at all.
Disqualification for Enrolment: Section 24A and the Two-Year Rule
A worked example
Ajay applies to a State Bar Council for enrolment. He satisfies every clause of section 24. Three facts emerge from his verification.
Fact one. In 2020 he was convicted of cheating under the penal law and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. He was released on 1 March 2023.
Cheating is an offence involving moral turpitude, so clause (a) applies. The proviso runs from release, which is 1 March 2023, so the disqualification ceased on 1 March 2025. If Ajay applies today, he is not disqualified by this conviction.
Fact two. In 2024 he was convicted of an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, fined, and not imprisoned.
Clause (b) applies and needs no finding of moral turpitude. There was no imprisonment and so no release, so the two years run from the conviction in 2024. The disqualification is still running, and Ajay must be refused.
Fact three, in the alternative. Suppose that for the 2024 offence the court, instead of convicting and sentencing him, found him guilty and released him on a bond of good behaviour under the Probation of Offenders Act 1958.
Section 24A(2) applies. Sub-section (1) does not apply to him at all, so there is no disqualification and no two-year wait.
What the Bar Council does. Faced with a proposed refusal, the enrolment committee must, under section 26(2), refer the application to the Bar Council of India for opinion with a statement of grounds, and under section 26(3) it must dispose of the application in conformity with that opinion. It cannot simply refuse on its own.
What it does NOT mean
It is not a punishment. Section 24A is a condition of entry. The punishments for an advocate are in section 35(3) and are imposed on a person already on the roll, after a disciplinary proceeding. Module III deals with those.
It does not apply to an advocate already enrolled. A conviction after enrolment is dealt with as misconduct under section 35, not under section 24A. That is why an advocate convicted of assault in Hikmat Ali Khan v. Ishwar Prasad Arya, AIR 1997 SC 864, was proceeded against under the disciplinary provisions and had his name removed from the roll, rather than being said to have become disqualified.
A pending case is not a disqualification. Only a conviction, or a dismissal or removal, is.
The disqualification is not for life. Two years after release, dismissal or removal, it ceases by the force of the proviso itself, without any application to have it lifted.
Disqualification for Enrolment: Section 24A and the Two-Year Rule
Distinctions
| Section 24A | Section 35 | |
|---|---|---|
| Applies to | a person applying for enrolment | an advocate already on the roll |
| Nature | a disqualification, a bar to entry | a punishment for misconduct |
| Who decides | the enrolment committee, section 26 | the disciplinary committee, sections 35 and 36 |
| Trigger | conviction, or dismissal from State employment | professional or other misconduct |
| Duration | ceases after two years by the proviso | as ordered: reprimand, suspension or removal |
| Appeal | none under this section; refusal runs through section 26(2) and (3) | section 37 to the Bar Council of India, then section 38 to the Supreme Court |
Quick revision
- Section 24A was inserted in 1973, with effect from 31 January 1974.
- Three disqualifications: (a) conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude; (b) conviction under the Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955, now the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, with no moral turpitude required; (c) dismissal or removal from employment or office under the State on a charge involving moral turpitude.
- "State" in clause (c) has the Article 12 meaning.
- Proviso: the disqualification ceases after two years from release for (a) and (b), and from dismissal or removal for (c).
- Section 24A(2): sub-section (1) does not apply to a person dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act 1958.
- A pending prosecution is not a disqualification. Only conviction is.
- Section 24A is a bar to entry; misconduct by an enrolled advocate is section 35.
Test yourself
1. Does a conviction under the Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955 require proof of moral turpitude before it disqualifies? No. Clause (b) operates on the conviction alone. Only clauses (a) and (c) use the phrase "moral turpitude".
2. From what date do the two years run for a person sentenced to imprisonment for an offence involving moral turpitude? From his release. The proviso says the disqualification ceases after two years have elapsed since his release, so the period spent in custody does not count towards the two years.
3. An applicant was dismissed from a private company for dishonesty. Is he disqualified under section 24A(1)(c)? No. Clause (c) applies to dismissal or removal from employment or office under the State, and the Explanation gives "State" the meaning in Article 12 of the Constitution. A private company is not within it.
4. An applicant was found guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude and released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act 1958. Is he disqualified? No. Section 24A(2) provides that sub-section (1) does not apply to such a person, so the disqualification never arises and there is no two-year period to wait out.
5. An advocate on the roll is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. Is he now disqualified under section 24A? No. Section 24A governs admission to the roll. Conduct of an enrolled advocate is dealt with as professional or other misconduct under section 35, on which the disciplinary committee may reprimand, suspend or remove him.
Disqualification for Enrolment: Section 24A and the Two-Year Rule
6. Can a State Bar Council refuse an application on its own, having found a disqualification? No. Under section 26(2), where the enrolment committee proposes to refuse it must refer the application to the Bar Council of India for opinion with a statement of the grounds, and under section 26(3) it must dispose of the application in conformity with that opinion.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself for the same subject.