Kerala Bar Council Member Moves Kerala HC Against The New Rules Of BCI

What was the Petition

• The petition was in the form of a writ under Article 226 against the New Bar Council of India Rules, for restricting the freedom of speech and expression of the legal fraternity guaranteed under Article 19 (2)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
• It was alleged that the vagueness in the rules would create a distress in engagement and participation of Advocates.
• The petition further submitted that the BCI has failed to comply with the provisions under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and therefore, the rules cannot be held valid.

About the Petitioner

• The petitioner, Adv. Rajesh Vijayan, is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala‌, and is practicing before the Kerala High Court.
• He is also a member of the Bar Council of Kerala since 2018.

About the Bar Council of India

• The Bar Council of India (BCI) is a statutory body established under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• The motto of constituting this regulatory body is to regulate legal education and legal practice in India.
• The rule making power of the Bar Council of India is given under Section 49 of the Act.

What are the impugned rules of the BCI

• The impugned rules were made by amending Part VI, Chapter II of the Bar Council of India Rules, with the insertion of Sections V and V-A thereunder.
• Section V prohibits Advocates from making derogatory, or defamatory remarks against the Bench as well as the BCI and State Bar Councils.
• Section V-A further strengthens the rule by imposing a penalty for its breach. Advocates violating the newly added rules shall be suspended or removed from membership.
• Further, such members shall also be disqualified from contesting the elections of any Bar Association or Bar Council. For this purpose, a 3-member Committee is to be constituted.

Important Case Laws Cited

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act as the provisions therein were vague.
• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124: The freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be restricted on any ground other than those covered under Article 19(2).
• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 (2) SCC 574: Public discussion on important administrative decisions is a basic feature of democracy.
• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 769: It is a citizen’s right to say or write about the Government, either positively or critically, to the extent that s/he doesn’t incite violence against the Government.

Relief Claimed

• To issue a writ, direction, or an order holding the new BCI rules as unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• To issue a writ, direction, or an order stating that the said rules could be given effect only after approval of the CJI under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• Interim Relief Claimed: To stay the operation of the rules, and to restrict the Bar Council of India from taking any coercive action as per the new rules.

What are your views on the new rules of the Bar Council of India and the petition filed against the same?