BCI disputes maintainability of plea challenging Section 9 of Advocates Act in Madras High Court

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has disputed the maintainability of the plea challenging the validity of Section 9 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Madras High Court was told on Monday (Karthik Ranganathan v. Union of India and 2 ors).The matter was taken up briefly by a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu when the Court was informed that the BCI had filed a counter-affidavit opposing the plea. .Appearing for the BCI, advocate SR Raghunathan on Monday contended that after going through the petitioner's affidavit, he found that there is not a single statement as to how Section 9 of the Advocates' Act violates the Constitution of India. .He went on to assert that the writ petition before the High Court is not maintainable..Madras High Court issues notice to BCI, TN Bar Council, Central government on plea challenging Section 9 of Advocates Act.Section 9 provides for the constitution of 'Disciplinary Committee' by the BCI and every State Bar Council to examine complaints of misconduct against advocates..The petitioner has contended that disciplinary committees should comprise of retired judges rather than continue with the present scheme of only having lawyers decide cases involving other lawyers..Appearing party in person, advocate Karthik Ranganathan on Monday apprised the Court that as per its counter affidavit, the BCI has sought to treat a complaint before the Disciplinary Committee akin to a "domestic enquiry" before any other organisation. Ranganathan added that the BCI has asserted that once the complaint is before the Disciplinary Committee, the authority vests with the Bar Council..Ranganathan noted that while the Bar Council may initially seek to verify if a prima facie case is made out against the accused advocate in the complaint, thereafter, the matter is prosecuted and decided by the Committee, which also comprises of lawyers. .All complaints are invariably made by citizens. Ranganathan, therefore, questioned whether the complaints can be treated as domestic in nature. The BCI's stand that the complainant has no privity to the case appears to be against public policy, he argued. .Responding to the BCI's contention that the plea does not detail how Section 9 violates the Constitution, Ranganathan reiterated his stance that there is an element of bias involved in having lawyers adjudge cases against lawyers. ."A person can't be the judge of his own cause," he argued. .He also recounted that at one point, after the BCI made its recommendations, the Law Commission of India had also proposed to include judges on the disciplinary committee i.e. that the Committee can be presided over by a retired district Judge when it comes to State-level disciplinary proceedings and that a retired High Court Judge preside when it comes to proceedings at the national level..However, the proceedings did not carry on for long as the petitioner sought to file a rejoinder in response to the BCI's counter affidavit. The Union of India was also yet to file their response, the Court was told. .The matter was, therefore, adjourned for a period of four weeks. The petitioner's rejoinder is to be submitted in three weeks' time, the Court directed. .[Read Order]

BCI disputes maintainability of plea challenging Section 9 of Advocates Act in Madras High Court

Meera Emmanuel

Related Stories