Bar Council Of India Cannot Issue Gag Orders Restraining Speech Of Advocates Or Its Members: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) does not have the power to issue gag orders restraining the speech of Advocates or even the members of the Bar Council.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The Chairman of the Bar Council of India ostensibly cannot pass any such gag order which takes away the fundamental right of any Advocate. The power of...
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) does not have the power to issue gag orders restraining the speech of Advocates or even the members of the Bar Council.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The Chairman of the Bar Council of India ostensibly cannot pass any such gag order which takes away the fundamental right of any Advocate. The power of the Courts either competent civil court or the constitutional Court, cannot be permitted to be usurped by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, as is done in the case at hand.”
The court held thus while allowing the petition filed by Senior Advocate S Basavaraj who had questioned the communication issued by BCI dated 12-04-2024.
Basavaraj had filed a case against the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Karnataka State Bar Council, alleging them of misappropriating official funds. The same was brought to the notice of the BCI which in its impugned order directed the Secretary of the State Bar Council to promptly furnish all relevant documents, receipts and financial records pertaining to the expenditure incurred within 15 days.
The Bar Council of India also authorised an audit to be conducted by a qualified Chartered Accountant. Pending the outcome of the enquiry proceedings, the Chairman, of the Bar Council of India passed a restraint/gag order on all members of the State Bar Council or any Advocate from making any further public statements or spreading any information related to the incident.
The bench noted that the direction, of the communication, is not against any particular individual, but against the community of Advocates itself.
Referring to provisions of the Advocates Act, the court said “Section 7(1)(g) (Advocates Act) empowers the Bar Council of India, to have general supervision and control over the State Bar Councils. General supervision and control, in the considered view of the Court, would not clothe with any power to the Bar Council of India, to pass such gag orders, restraining the speech of Advocates or even the members of the Bar Council, as it is general supervision and control and not control over the speaking of Advocates.”
It added, “The power of passing gag order, exercised by the 1st respondent on all the Advocates on a particular topic is dehors such power that can be exercised under the general supervision and control of the State Bar Council.”
Following this it held “Issuance of gag order is not a power that can be inferred from Section 7(1)(g) of the Act. Therefore, the very order directing restraint on an Advocate speaking is, on the face of it, contrary to law, and is unsustainable. The unsustainability of the order would lead to its obliteration.”
Accordingly it quashed the order and communication issued by BCI.
Appearance: Advocate A.R. Goutham for Petitioner.
Senior Advocate Udaya Holla a/w Advocate T.G Ravi for R2, R3.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 431
Case Title: S Bsavaraj AND Bar Council of India & Others Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11480 OF 2024