Maharashtra Bar Council Resolution Supporting Contempt Verdict Against Bhushan An 'Usurpation Of Power': Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai
Senior Advocate and a noted jurist, Navroz H. Seervai, has taken strong exception to the Full House Resolution of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in support of the Supreme Court's decision holding Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for two tweets he put out about Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and the Supreme Court. Seervai has stated that the...
Senior Advocate and a noted jurist, Navroz H. Seervai, has taken strong exception to the Full House Resolution of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in support of the Supreme Court's decision holding Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for two tweets he put out about Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and the Supreme Court.
Seervai has stated that the "purported unanimous" resolution, seeking to represent the interest of 1,75,000 lawyers, is a "usurpation of power," that must be strongly condemned by lawyers and Bar Associations in Maharashtra and Goa.
He has stressed that the State Bar Council has no authority to speak on behalf of and purport to represent 1,75,000 advocates. "That is a function, if at all, exclusively of Bar Associations of which lawyers are members," he said.
Significantly, Mr. Seervai has already expressed his views against the SC's judgment in the contempt case.
"The judgment is an assault on free speech and expression in the name of upholding the "dignity and majesty" of the Court in the eyes of the public. The judgment is clearly erroneous, both in its reasoning and its analysis and interpretation of the contempt jurisdiction," he had said in a statement given to LiveLaw.
Contempt Verdict Against Prashant Bhushan An Assault On Free Speech : Sr Adv Navroz Seervai
Reiterating the same he said,
"I unequivocally repudiate this attempt by the Bar Council to represent my views on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prashant Bhushan. In fact, my publicly stated position is to the contrary."
Terming the Bar Council's attempt to "arrogate to itself" the power and authority to speak on behalf of and purport to represent 1,75,000 advocates to be a "usurpation of power," Mr. Seervai said,
"The Bar Council, acting through it's "Full House", needs to be disabused of the grandiose notion that it represents the opinions of thousands of lawyers in the states of Maharashtra and Goa—it simply has no right or authority to do so in this fashion. That is a function, if at all, exclusively of Bar Associations of which lawyers are members. The Full House Resolution said to be passed on 19th August 2020 does not and cannot speak for all members of the Bar, and it certainly does not speak for me."
He highlighted that such actions speak eloquently to the "irresponsible manner" in which the Bar Council misconducts itself. He has stated that the Full House Resolution is a "servile, self-serving attempt by the Bar Council to curry favour with the Chief Justice of India, to whom it has been forwarded."
He remarked,
"Its cringing language reads more like a confession wrung out from the accused during the great show-trials in 1930s USSR, rather than a resolution of any substance, passed by a responsible statutory body in accordance with the limited powers conferred upon it under the Advocates Act, 1961. It is not without significance that it mouths the phrase "dealt with Iron hand (sic)", thereby aping the language of the judgment it so enthusiastically supports!"
In his previous statements criticizing the SC verdict, Mr. Seerviai had said,
"Much more worrying is that this judgment appears to be a calculated assault on the one segment of civil society which is familiar with what happens in Court, and the conduct of judges in and out of Court, namely members of the legal profession. It is these members who can speak to the goings-on in the judiciary with a degree of intimacy that others lack. The judgment will have a chilling effect on free speech generally, and that appears to be its intent, but it is also intended to send out a strong message to the legal profession, by making an example of Prashant Bhushan for daring to exercise his fundamental right to freedom of speech.
The tragedy for the country is that this will, in all probability, succeed—both in its intention and effect. The judgment will be cited as precedent by the Court to protect an institution that knows that its conduct and its position lays it open to adverse comment and criticism across the spectrum of civil society, as happened recently in its initial response to the migrant crisis. That is something that the Court clearly cannot tolerate, despite all its protestations to the contrary."
Several lawyers in India have expressed their dismay at the Supreme Court verdict, and issued public statements and held demonstrations expressing solidarity with Bhushan. Over 2000 lawyers, including noted Senior Advocates, have endorsed the statement of support for Bhushan.
The Executive Committee of the Bar Association of India also expressed its dismay at the Supreme Court verdict.
Bodies like Bar Association of India, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) have also criticized the verdict against Bhushan.