IMPORTANT POINT
The Bar Council of India lacks authority to impose gag orders on advocates, infringing their fundamental right to free speech.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner, a practicing Advocate is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent in terms of its communication dated 12-04-2024 by which certain restrictions are imposed upon the practice of the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri A.R. Goutham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 1st respondent/Bar Council of India is a statutory body constituted under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Respondents 2 and 3 are Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Karnataka State Bar Council, a Council constituted under Section 3 of the Act. The functions of the State Bar Council are as enumerated under Section 6 of the Act. Internal management and self governance are the facets of the enumeration under Section 4. The functions of the Bar Council of India are defined under Section 7 of the Act which includes general supervision and control over the State Bar Council. Certain facts which triggered registration of crime against respondents 2 and 3 in which the present petitioner is the constituent require to be succinctly observed. In the month of August 2023, the Karnataka State Bar Council had organized a State Level Advocates Conference at Mysuru. Claiming certain expenditure to have been incurred which was not on record which resulted in misappropriation of funds, the petitioner registered a complaint against respondents 2 and 3. All these factors form a part of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.3666 of 2024.

4. After registration of the crime by the petitioner against respondents 2 and 3, it is the averment in the petition that forces inimical to him have dragged the petitioner, before the 1st respondent/Bar Council of India. When the cup of allegation, was brewing, it appears that a letter is sent by a former Chairman on 05-04-2024 to the Bar Council of India. Based upon the said letter, the 1st respondent passes the impugned order on 12-04-2024 and communicates it to the Secretary, Karnataka Bar Council. Challenging the said order, the subject petition is preferred. By the time the petition was filed, a crime had been registered by the petitioner, which had become a crime in Crime No.37 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 34, 37, 120B, 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477A of the IPC. The crime so registered in Crime No.37 of 2024 becomes the subject matter of Criminal Petition No.3666 of 2024. The communication of the Bar Council of India becomes the challenge in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.R. Goutham would vehemently contend that the Bar Council of India has no power to pass gag orders, as is passed in the case at hand. The fundamental right of the petitioner, right to speech is taken away by this order. Therefore, he would submit that, on the face of it, the impugned order being contrary to and violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner, should not be permitted to remain. He would seek the writ petition be allowed.

6. The 1st respondent/Bar Council of India, though served remains unrepresented.

7. The learned senior counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that they have nothing to do with the squabble between the Bar Council of India and the petitioner, it is on a communication sent by the ex-Chairman of the Bar Council the impugned action is taken. Therefore, they would leave the decision to the Court.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The factum of the issue leading to registration of a crime in Crime No.37 of 2024 need not be gone into in detail. The observations made in the course of the order would suffice. This order revolves around a communicati