New Delhi: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has kept in abeyance its newly-framed rule that prohibited advocates from making “indecent, derogatory, defamatory, motivated, malicious or mischievous” statements against a judge or member of the Bar’s disciplinary bodies.
The decision was taken Wednesday, within four days of the rule being introduced. In this period, petitions had also been filed in the Kerala High Court as well as the Supreme Court challenging the provision.
According to the rule now set aside, disciplinary proceedings for a lawyer’s suspension could be initiated for making adverse remarks against a judge or any BCI member.
Sources in the BCI said the rule has been suspended due the growing perception that it violated a lawyer’s fundamental rights to free speech and expression. However, the official BCI statement maintained that the council didn’t take the step under any public pressure, and the new rule was to ensure the dignity of the profession.
Moreover, the BCI agreed to form a committee to review the rule as it sought to address the concerns voiced by members of the legal profession.
The review committee will comprise senior advocates, representatives of states’ bar council and high court and other bar associations, besides five members of BCI. The committee will interact with all stakeholders and submit its report within three weeks.
Senior BCI member Ved Prakash Sharma said: “The council took cognisance of the concerns expressed by a section of the Bar regarding the new rule. It was decided to have a free interaction with one and all to allay their fears and misapprehension about the real intent and purpose behind it.”
Also read: Judiciary cannot be controlled or else ‘rule of law’ will become illusory, CJI Ramana says
BCI refutes rule meant to impose any restriction
According to a petition filed in the Kerala High Court, the contentious rule is vague and consequently creates an indisputable distress on public engagement and participation by advocates.
Filed by a member of the state bar council in Kerala, the petition claimed the rule is also against the decisions of the Supreme Court that have laid down the legally permissible restrictions on free speech and expression.
Similarly, a plea filed by three practising lawyers in the apex court voiced reservations against the rule. It said the BCI has no legislative powers to frame such a rule and that the body has exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so.
However, the BCI denied that its rule affected a lawyer’s right to exercise free speech. In a statement, BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said the rule does not curtail fair criticism of judgments and analyses.
“No prudent and real advocate could oppose such steps of the BCI. And only those who are not in active practise, but always indulge in nasty and nefarious activities and have been maligning the image of the profession raise a hue and cry when meaningful steps are taken to preserve the dignity of the profession,” the statement said.
Committee to re-frame the rule
Admitting that the rule was vague, a BCI member told ThePrint on condition of anonymity that the panel shall be entrusted with the task to re-frame it.
“Whoever has criticised the rule has done so on the ground that it is vague. Therefore, the committee would be asked to look into it and redraft it in such a way that it becomes explanatory and is not opposed by anyone again,” the member said.
But there was no move to drop it, he added. “We have been forced to introduce this rule as many instances have come to our notice where for political benefits lawyers post incorrect information on social media platforms that causes anxiety among bar members,” he said.
“This has increased during the pandemic when allegations were levelled against council members for demanding commission to provide financial assistance to lawyers in distress,” the member added.
Also read: Justice Ashok Bhushan’s verdicts stand testimony to his welfarist & humanist approach: CJI