The Karnataka High Court.
Credit: PTI Photo
Bengaluru: The Chairman of the Bar Council of India cannot pass any gag order which takes away the fundamental right of any advocate, the Karnataka High Court has observed in a recent judgement. The court said this while quashing the April 8, 2024 order issued by the Chairman of Bar Council of India, communicated to petitioner S Basavaraj, a senior advocate and also a member of the Karnataka State Bar Council.
The Chairman of the Bar Council of India had issued a temporary restraint/gag on all members of the Karnataka State Bar Council or any advocate from making any further public statements or spreading any information related to the expenditure incurred during the State Level Conference held at Mysuru in August 2023.
Senior advocate Basavaraj, who incidentally had registered a police complaint over the same issue of irregularities, argued that the Bar Council of India has no power to pass such gag orders and it has taken away his right to speech. The Bar Council of India remained unrepresented in the proceedings.
Justice M Nagaprasanna examined the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 and said that section 7(1)(g) empowers the Bar Council of India to have general supervision and control over the State Bar Councils. “General supervision and control, in the considered view of the court, would not clothe with any power to the Bar Council of India, to pass such gag orders, restraining the speech of Advocates or even the members of the Bar Council, as it is general supervision and control and not control over the speaking of Advocates,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
The court further said, “The power of passing gag order, exercised by the Bar Council of India on all the Advocates on a particular topic, is de hors such power that can be exercised under the general supervision and control of the State Bar Council. Issuance of gag order is not a power that can be inferred from Section 7(1)(g) of the Act. Therefore, the very order directing restraint on an Advocate speaking is, on the face of it, contrary to law, and is unsustainable. The unsustainability of the order would lead to its obliteration.”