The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking directions to prevent members of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils from being affiliated with political parties [CR Jaya Sukin v Union of India and Ors.]..A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that bar bodies are intellectual organizations and that there was no harm in bar members having a political ideology, "The bar bodies are intellectual bodies. Their things won't change just because the President or Chairman has an ideology. We are a country of firm faith in democracy. We cannot direct Parliament to enact a law or something," the Court said..The Court also noted that Senior Advocates Manan Kumar Mishra and Kapil Sibal, who head the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) respectively, also have political history/ affiliations."What is wrong with if any member of the bar has any ideology? This would also include political ideology. You want to oust Mr. Sibal from president of SCBA? You want to oust Mr. Mishra from Chairman of Bar Council of India?" the Court remarked. .What is wrong with if any member of the bar has any ideology?Supreme Court.The plea before the Court had contended that like judicial officers, government employees and armed forces personnel, members of the Bar Council should also be restricted from joining political parties or holding political positions. It argued that such affiliations compromise the independence of bar bodies which play a critical role in the justice delivery system..The Court, however, was not convinced that there was anything improper about a bar member holding a political ideology.When the petitioner specifically raised concerns about the BCI and State Bar Councils, the Court quipped that the petitioner should "join a political party" to gain experience in understanding such dynamics.The Court also highlighted that it could not issue a directive to the parliament to legislate on such matters. Consequently, it rejected the plea but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach other authorities for seeking recourse from the appropriate forum..[Read Order].[Live Coverage]
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking directions to prevent members of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils from being affiliated with political parties [CR Jaya Sukin v Union of India and Ors.]..A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that bar bodies are intellectual organizations and that there was no harm in bar members having a political ideology, "The bar bodies are intellectual bodies. Their things won't change just because the President or Chairman has an ideology. We are a country of firm faith in democracy. We cannot direct Parliament to enact a law or something," the Court said..The Court also noted that Senior Advocates Manan Kumar Mishra and Kapil Sibal, who head the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) respectively, also have political history/ affiliations."What is wrong with if any member of the bar has any ideology? This would also include political ideology. You want to oust Mr. Sibal from president of SCBA? You want to oust Mr. Mishra from Chairman of Bar Council of India?" the Court remarked. .What is wrong with if any member of the bar has any ideology?Supreme Court.The plea before the Court had contended that like judicial officers, government employees and armed forces personnel, members of the Bar Council should also be restricted from joining political parties or holding political positions. It argued that such affiliations compromise the independence of bar bodies which play a critical role in the justice delivery system..The Court, however, was not convinced that there was anything improper about a bar member holding a political ideology.When the petitioner specifically raised concerns about the BCI and State Bar Councils, the Court quipped that the petitioner should "join a political party" to gain experience in understanding such dynamics.The Court also highlighted that it could not issue a directive to the parliament to legislate on such matters. Consequently, it rejected the plea but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach other authorities for seeking recourse from the appropriate forum..[Read Order].[Live Coverage]
