"Review Committee Yet to Decide": Bombay High Court Disposes Plea Challenging Bar Council's Rules Prohibiting Its Own Criticism

BCI's rules make public criticism of any Court, Judge, State Bar Council or Bar Council of India 'a misconduct' and ground for disqualification, suspension or removal of membership from the Bar Council under section 35 of the Advocate's Act.

The petition filed by Advocate Amritpal Singh Khalsa had sought a declaration that the notification is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(a), 21 of the Constitution of India and subsequently directions for it to be quashed and set aside.

Following disapproval from several quarters, BCI said it had decided to form a review committee and meanwhile, kept the rules in abeyance until the report is received.

On Friday, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh for BCI appraised the court that according to the petition itself BCI had taken a decision to constitute a committee to review the decision and kept its order in abeyance. Therefore the plea should be disposed of.

"This is reflected in the press release of Council which the petitioner has attached. Tomorrow the review committee may delete this (the impugned notification). Let them apply their mind," he added.

Singh urged the bench to dispose of the petition. However, advocate Hare Krishna Mishra sought an adjournment and informed the court that Khalsa was in Amritsar for his marriage.

The bench of Justices Prasanna B Varale and Madhav J Jamdar then said, "Ask him to concentrate on good things. We wish him well."

Mishra then requested the Bench to grant Khalsa liberty to approach the court if the proposed rules are finalised.

To this, the bench said, "Considering the press release, the grievance of the petition does not survive as the review committee is expected to take a decision. Petitioner (Khalsa) is granted liberty to make representation before the review committee. The review committee can take into consideration his representation. Petitioner also can avail appropriate remedies if he is aggrieved by the outcome of the review committee's report and in consequent, Bar council of India's order."

In his plea, Khalsa sought to injunct the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana from approving the Rules. Under the proviso to 49(1) of the Advocate's Act, the Rules shall not have effect without his assent. The Bombay Bar Association filed a limited reply, opposing the CJI from being impleaded as a party.

The CJI, along with BCI, its chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, Union Ministry of Law and Justice, Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, and five other Bar Associations were impleaded as respondents in the petition.

The plea stated that prohibition for lawyers under the amended rules is 'absolute' as it bars publication of anything against a resolution or order of the Bar Council, which is an absolute infringement of the very freedom of speech and expression.

"The present impugned notification is akin to the draconian UAPA Act, which is quite frequently misused to harass, suppress and to smother the voice of dissent…It is difficult to believe that the Bar Council of India made such rules, which even the worst dictator, tyrant, would not have thought to."

If a lawyer crosses boundaries of criticism, recourse is available in the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner had said.

Click Here To Read/ Download Order