Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Prashant Bhushan Plea To Allow Advocate Members Of Organizations To Appear Before Court In Organization's Pro-Bono Public Interest Cases

Bhushan has moved court seeking the quashing of a specific complaint filed against him by one Major SK Punia (Retired) before the Bar Council of Delhi for the alleged violation of the impugned Rule 8.

In his petition, Bhushan has challenged the Rule to the extent that, "...Rule 8 is being used to prevent an Advocate from appearing in a pro bono public interest case on behalf of an organisation of which he/she happens to be an office bearer or member of it's executive committee."

The (Retd.) Major's complaint on the basis of which proceedings were initiated against Bhushan, contended that Bhushan was in violation of the impugned Rule 8 as he had appeared on behalf of organizations such as Centre for Public Interest Litigation, Common Cause and Swaraj Abhiyan despite being a member of the Executive

Committee of these organizations.

In his defence, Bhushan has stated before the Bar Council of Delhi that Rule 8 has no application in a case wherein an Advocate, who is on the Executive Committee of a non-profit organization, appears in a public interest case without any fees and therefore all consequential proceedings arising from the complaint by the Major must be quashed.

Bhushan elaborates that there have been innumerable public interest cases filed by organizations such as Common Cause, Swaraj Abhiyan and Centre for Public Interest Litigation in which Senior Advocates and retired judges of the High Courts have represented organizations of which they are on the executive body. He cites examples of Late Justice V.M. Tarkunde and Late Justice Rajender Sachhar, who while being office bearers of the PUCL, have represented PUCL as Advocates in innumerable cases.

He claims that an "identical complaint was made way back in 2001" against him on the ground that he was appearing in the public interest petition filed on behalf of the PUCL in spite of being a member of the said organization. The proceeding was initiated by Bar Council on the basis of the said complaint as

well as the validity of Rule 8 was challenged by Bhushan himself in WP (Civil) N. 5518 of 2001, titled as Prashant Bhushan v. Bar Council of Delhi. However, the Delhi High Court had directed the Bar Council of India to drop the proceeding. He further submits that the Bar Council of India itself was considering appropriate amendment

in the said Rule 8, as a result of which the Court had not delved into the validity of the said rule.

In his defence, Bhushan has also said that pursuant to an advisory by the Bar Council of Delhi dated 15.02.2019 to refrain from appearing as an advocate for and on behalf of organizations, society or institutions, where he

is a member of executive, in his capacity as an advocate, he had placed on record, by way of an affidavit, his resignation letter from the executive body of all the three organizations mentioned in the complaint i.e. Swaraj Abhiyan, Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation