Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
S. Basavaraj, S/O Late M. Siddaramaiah – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council Of India No. 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi, By Its Secretary – Respondent
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 petitio
The Bar Council of India lacks authority to impose gag orders on advocates, infringing their fundamental right to free speech.
The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.
Gag orders infringing freedom of speech must meet strict constitutional standards; procedural violations in granting injunctions render such orders impermissible.
Interim injunctions must meet the triple test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; ex-parte orders are justified in defamation cases where urgent protection is needed.
Injunction – While granting ad-interim injunctions in defamation suits, potential of using prolonged litigation to prevent free speech and public participation must also be kept in mind by courts.
Interim injunctions in defamation suits must balance free speech and reputation, requiring clear evidence of harm; mere allegations are insufficient for relief.
The Bar Council lacks the authority to impose interim suspension on an Advocate pending disciplinary proceedings, as per the Advocates Act, 1961, which mandates adherence to due process and principle....
Digital intermediaries are statutorily exempt from liability for third-party content. They are not required to adjudicate the veracity or defamatory nature of online publications until presented with....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
