.. “Total Restriction On Lawyers’ Free Speech”: Plea In Kerala HC Challenges New Bar Council Rules Which Make Criticism Of Its Decisions Ground For Disqualification

Live Law
Top StoriesNews UpdatesColumnsInterviewsForeign/InternationalRTIKnow the LawLaw School CornerLawyers & Law FirmsJob UpdatesBook ReviewsEvents CornerVideosSponsoredContact UsAdvertise with UsRound Ups
Home > Top Stories > ‘Total Restriction On…

Live Law
Top StoriesNews UpdatesColumnsInterviewsForeign/InternationalRTIKnow the LawLaw School CornerLawyers & Law FirmsJob UpdatesBook ReviewsEvents CornerVideosSponsoredContact UsAdvertise with UsRound Ups
Home > Top Stories > ‘Total Restriction On…
“Total Restriction On Lawyers’ Free Speech”: Plea In Kerala HC Challenges New Bar Council Rules Which Make Criticism Of Its Decisions Ground For Disqualification
By – Hannah M VargheseUpdate: 2021-06-28 07:40 GMT
Madras High Court, Specify Mechanism, Taking Action Against Advocates, Misbehave With Officials Duty, Bar Council Tamil Nadu, Justice M. Dhandapani,

A petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court by Advocate Rajesh Vijayan, a member of the Kerala Bar Council seeking a declaration that the recently inserted Sections V and V-A of Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules are unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), and 21.

The Bar Council of India had recently published a notification dated 25th June 2021 adding Sections V and V-A to Chapter-II, Part VI of the Rules according to which the decision of any State Bar Council or Bar Council of India shall not be criticized or attacked by any Member/s of Bar Council in public domain.

The Writ Petition was filed aggrieved by the addition of these provisions, which has the effect of, inter alia, prohibiting criticism and dissent against the Bar Council of India and other Bar Councils, and demanding unquestioning acceptance of all decisions taken by them.

The petition filed through Advocate Santhosh Mathew submitted that the newly added rules infringe on the constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression of the petitioner in his capacity as an Advocate and as a Bar Council member. It was alleged that the rules are vague and consequently create an indisputable distress on public engagement and participation by Advocates. The petition also alleged that the said provisions blatantly violate the decisions of the Supreme Court which have laid down the legally permissible restrictions on free speech and expression.

It was also submitted in the petition that these rules prescribe a procedure for proceeding against Advocates and Bar Council members which violates the basic principles of natural justice. By publishing them in the Gazette of India, it was alleged to be an attempt to inhibit the exercise of free speech and expression by Advocates and Bar Council members, although the statutorily mandated procedure for giving effect to such rules has not been fulfilled.

Additionally, the petition highlighted that Section V-A prescribed a procedure for declaring an Advocate or Bar Council member as disqualified to contest the elections of any Bar Association or Bar Council. However, in this procedure, it has been stated that Bar Council of India shall take its decision after consideration of the report of the Committee. This implies that the final decision is made by the BCI itself, which was condemned by the petitioner.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the first proviso to Section 49 (1) of the Advocates Act mandated that no rules made with reference to Section 49 (1) (c) shall have effect unless they have been approved by the CJI.

However, the said notification does not disclose if any approval from the CJI has been obtained for Section V. The BCI has not yet clarified as to whether or not it has obtained approval from the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India with respect to Section V.

At the outset, without fulfilling this statutory requirement, Section V cannot be given effect to. However, the impression that has been widely reported and conveyed in the legal and general media is that with the publication of the said notification in the Gazette of India, the newly introduced Sections have come into operation.

The petition expressed grave concerns given the drastic penalties that have been prescribed. It was submitted that in the absence of certainty as to whether or not Section V is currently in effect, it is likely that many persons will exercise self-censorship, thus leading to a classic case of violation of free speech and expression.

On these grounds, the petition sought to declare the aforementioned provisions unconstitutional and illegal. It was argued that the vague and subjective standards adopted in Sections V and V-A to determine what is permissible speech violate the petitioner’s rights under Part III of the Constitution and also deviate from the decisions of the Apex Court.

The petitioner also submitted that the demand for unquestioning agreement with the decisions of the Bar Councils is also a violation of the his constitutional rights.

Accordingly, it was prayed that the Court issue a writ of mandamus or any other direction declaring that Sections V and V-A of Chapter II of Part VI of the BCI Rules are violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), and 21 of the Constitution, and a declaration that these provisions can be given effect to only after obtaining the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India under the first proviso to Section 49 (1) of the Advocates Act.

Meanwhile, the petition also sought an interim relief to stay the operation of these provisions and to restrain the respondent from taking any coercive action or any steps pursuant to the said Rules pending the disposal of this Writ Petition.

Title: Rajesh Vijayan v. Bar Council of India
Click Here To Download/Read Petition

Tags:
Bar Council of India Disciplinary Rules Misconduct Disqualification Kerala High Court Bar Council Rules Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

Trend Of Lawyers Giving Dishonest Advice Needs To Be Deprecated; Must Impose Costs, Strictures: Supreme Court
Mode Of Entry In Service Is Not Relevant For Considering Promotion Of Persons With Disabilities: Supreme Court
Only In Indian Supreme Court Can One Come Against Procedural Direction At Interim Stage,Won’t Happen In SCOTUS: SC
Justices AM Khanwilkar & Dinesh Maheshwari Recuse From Hearing NLSIU’s Petition Against HC Order To Promote Student
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Matrix Cellular’s Plea For Release Of Oxygen Concentrators Seized By Delhi Police
Limitation Act Provisions Will Apply To Arbitration Proceedings Initiated Under Section 18(3) MSMED Act: Supreme Court
CA Exams : Supreme Court Rejects Prayers For Waiver Of Articleship, Vaccine Priority For Candidates
Breaking: CA Exam: Opt-Out Option Will Be Extended To All Syllabus COVID Affected Candidates And Those Who Are Unable To Appear Because Of COVID After Effects – ICAI To SC
‘Legitimate Legislative Exercise’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws Act 2019
Ghaziabad Video : Karnataka High Court To Hear Twitter MD’s Challenge Against UP Police Notice On July 5
Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Strictly Implement Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act 1979
Gauri Lankesh Murder : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Sister’s Plea Challenging Quashing Of KCOCA Charges Against Accused
Similar News
Trend Of Lawyers Giving Dishonest Advice Needs To Be Deprecated; Must Impose Costs, Strictures: Supreme Court
2021-06-30 04:00 GMT
Mode Of Entry In Service Is Not Relevant For Considering Promotion Of Persons With Disabilities: Supreme Court
2021-06-29 16:08 GMT
Only In Indian Supreme Court Can One Come Against Procedural Direction At Interim Stage,Won’t Happen In SCOTUS: SC
2021-06-29 16:02 GMT
Justices AM Khanwilkar & Dinesh Maheshwari Recuse From Hearing NLSIU’s Petition Against HC Order To Promote Student
2021-06-29 15:18 GMT
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Matrix Cellular’s Plea For Release Of Oxygen Concentrators Seized By Delhi Police
2021-06-29 14:37 GMT
Limitation Act Provisions Will Apply To Arbitration Proceedings Initiated Under Section 18(3) MSMED Act: Supreme Court
2021-06-29 14:11 GMT
CA Exams : Supreme Court Rejects Prayers For Waiver Of Articleship, Vaccine Priority For Candidates
2021-06-29 13:34 GMT
Breaking: CA Exam: Opt-Out Option Will Be Extended To All Syllabus COVID Affected Candidates And Those Who Are Unable To Appear Because Of COVID After Effects – ICAI To SC
2021-06-29 13:05 GMT
‘Legitimate Legislative Exercise’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws Act 2019
2021-06-29 11:54 GMT
Ghaziabad Video : Karnataka High Court To Hear Twitter MD’s Challenge Against UP Police Notice On July 5
2021-06-29 11:46 GMT
Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Strictly Implement Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act 1979
2021-06-29 10:53 GMT
Gauri Lankesh Murder : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Sister’s Plea Challenging Quashing Of KCOCA Charges Against Accused
2021-06-29 10:00 GMT
Follow:
Copyright @2020Powered by Hocalwire
By – Hannah M VargheseUpdate: 2021-06-28 07:40 GMT
Madras High Court, Specify Mechanism, Taking Action Against Advocates, Misbehave With Officials Duty, Bar Council Tamil Nadu, Justice M. Dhandapani,

A petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court by Advocate Rajesh Vijayan, a member of the Kerala Bar Council seeking a declaration that the recently inserted Sections V and V-A of Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules are unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), and 21.

The Bar Council of India had recently published a notification dated 25th June 2021 adding Sections V and V-A to Chapter-II, Part VI of the Rules according to which the decision of any State Bar Council or Bar Council of India shall not be criticized or attacked by any Member/s of Bar Council in public domain.

The Writ Petition was filed aggrieved by the addition of these provisions, which has the effect of, inter alia, prohibiting criticism and dissent against the Bar Council of India and other Bar Councils, and demanding unquestioning acceptance of all decisions taken by them.

The petition filed through Advocate Santhosh Mathew submitted that the newly added rules infringe on the constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression of the petitioner in his capacity as an Advocate and as a Bar Council member. It was alleged that the rules are vague and consequently create an indisputable distress on public engagement and participation by Advocates. The petition also alleged that the said provisions blatantly violate the decisions of the Supreme Court which have laid down the legally permissible restrictions on free speech and expression.

It was also submitted in the petition that these rules prescribe a procedure for proceeding against Advocates and Bar Council members which violates the basic principles of natural justice. By publishing them in the Gazette of India, it was alleged to be an attempt to inhibit the exercise of free speech and expression by Advocates and Bar Council members, although the statutorily mandated procedure for giving effect to such rules has not been fulfilled.

Additionally, the petition highlighted that Section V-A prescribed a procedure for declaring an Advocate or Bar Council member as disqualified to contest the elections of any Bar Association or Bar Council. However, in this procedure, it has been stated that Bar Council of India shall take its decision after consideration of the report of the Committee. This implies that the final decision is made by the BCI itself, which was condemned by the petitioner.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the first proviso to Section 49 (1) of the Advocates Act mandated that no rules made with reference to Section 49 (1) (c) shall have effect unless they have been approved by the CJI.

However, the said notification does not disclose if any approval from the CJI has been obtained for Section V. The BCI has not yet clarified as to whether or not it has obtained approval from the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India with respect to Section V.

At the outset, without fulfilling this statutory requirement, Section V cannot be given effect to. However, the impression that has been widely reported and conveyed in the legal and general media is that with the publication of the said notification in the Gazette of India, the newly introduced Sections have come into operation.

The petition expressed grave concerns given the drastic penalties that have been prescribed. It was submitted that in the absence of certainty as to whether or not Section V is currently in effect, it is likely that many persons will exercise self-censorship, thus leading to a classic case of violation of free speech and expression.

On these grounds, the petition sought to declare the aforementioned provisions unconstitutional and illegal. It was argued that the vague and subjective standards adopted in Sections V and V-A to determine what is permissible speech violate the petitioner’s rights under Part III of the Constitution and also deviate from the decisions of the Apex Court.

The petitioner also submitted that the demand for unquestioning agreement with the decisions of the Bar Councils is also a violation of the his constitutional rights.

Accordingly, it was prayed that the Court issue a writ of mandamus or any other direction declaring that Sections V and V-A of Chapter II of Part VI of the BCI Rules are violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), and 21 of the Constitution, and a declaration that these provisions can be given effect to only after obtaining the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India under the first proviso to Section 49 (1) of the Advocates Act.

Meanwhile, the petition also sought an interim relief to stay the operation of these provisions and to restrain the respondent from taking any coercive action or any steps pursuant to the said Rules pending the disposal of this Writ Petition.

Title: Rajesh Vijayan v. Bar Council of India
Click Here To Download/Read Petition

Tags:
Bar Council of India Disciplinary Rules Misconduct Disqualification Kerala High Court Bar Council Rules Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

Trend Of Lawyers Giving Dishonest Advice Needs To Be Deprecated; Must Impose Costs, Strictures: Supreme Court
Mode Of Entry In Service Is Not Relevant For Considering Promotion Of Persons With Disabilities: Supreme Court
Only In Indian Supreme Court Can One Come Against Procedural Direction At Interim Stage,Won’t Happen In SCOTUS: SC
Justices AM Khanwilkar & Dinesh Maheshwari Recuse From Hearing NLSIU’s Petition Against HC Order To Promote Student
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Matrix Cellular’s Plea For Release Of Oxygen Concentrators Seized By Delhi Police
Limitation Act Provisions Will Apply To Arbitration Proceedings Initiated Under Section 18(3) MSMED Act: Supreme Court
CA Exams : Supreme Court Rejects Prayers For Waiver Of Articleship, Vaccine Priority For Candidates
Breaking: CA Exam: Opt-Out Option Will Be Extended To All Syllabus COVID Affected Candidates And Those Who Are Unable To Appear Because Of COVID After Effects – ICAI To SC
‘Legitimate Legislative Exercise’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws Act 2019
Ghaziabad Video : Karnataka High Court To Hear Twitter MD’s Challenge Against UP Police Notice On July 5
Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Strictly Implement Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act 1979
Gauri Lankesh Murder : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Sister’s Plea Challenging Quashing Of KCOCA Charges Against Accused
Similar News
Trend Of Lawyers Giving Dishonest Advice Needs To Be Deprecated; Must Impose Costs, Strictures: Supreme Court
2021-06-30 04:00 GMT
Mode Of Entry In Service Is Not Relevant For Considering Promotion Of Persons With Disabilities: Supreme Court
2021-06-29 16:08 GMT
Only In Indian Supreme Court Can One Come Against Procedural Direction At Interim Stage,Won’t Happen In SCOTUS: SC
2021-06-29 16:02 GMT
Justices AM Khanwilkar & Dinesh Maheshwari Recuse From Hearing NLSIU’s Petition Against HC Order To Promote Student
2021-06-29 15:18 GMT
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Matrix Cellular’s Plea For Release Of Oxygen Concentrators Seized By Delhi Police
2021-06-29 14:37 GMT
Limitation Act Provisions Will Apply To Arbitration Proceedings Initiated Under Section 18(3) MSMED Act: Supreme Court
2021-06-29 14:11 GMT
CA Exams : Supreme Court Rejects Prayers For Waiver Of Articleship, Vaccine Priority For Candidates
2021-06-29 13:34 GMT
Breaking: CA Exam: Opt-Out Option Will Be Extended To All Syllabus COVID Affected Candidates And Those Who Are Unable To Appear Because Of COVID After Effects – ICAI To SC
2021-06-29 13:05 GMT
‘Legitimate Legislative Exercise’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws Act 2019
2021-06-29 11:54 GMT
Ghaziabad Video : Karnataka High Court To Hear Twitter MD’s Challenge Against UP Police Notice On July 5
2021-06-29 11:46 GMT
Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Strictly Implement Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act 1979
2021-06-29 10:53 GMT
Gauri Lankesh Murder : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Sister’s Plea Challenging Quashing Of KCOCA Charges Against Accused
2021-06-29 10:00 GMT
Follow:
Copyright @2020Powered by Hocalwire

You may also like...