In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed a gag order issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) against all members of the Karnataka State Bar Council, reaffirming the right to free speech and expression for advocates. The judgment, delivered by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, arose from a writ petition filed by S. Basavaraj, a senior advocate and member of the Karnataka State Bar Council, challenging the gag order imposed following a controversy over alleged financial mismanagement during a 2023 State Level Advocates Conference.
Background of the Case:
The controversy began in August 2023, when the Karnataka State Bar Council organized a State Level Advocates Conference in Mysuru. Allegations of financial mismanagement surfaced, leading to a criminal complaint by the petitioner, S. Basavaraj. The complaint was directed against the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Karnataka State Bar Council, Mr. Vishala Raghu and Mr. Vinay Mangekar, for alleged misappropriation of funds. The petitioner’s actions triggered retaliatory measures, including the gag order from the BCI, dated April 12, 2024, which prohibited advocates from making public statements regarding the expenditure in question.
Legal Issues Involved:
The key legal issue revolved around the authority of the Bar Council of India to impose a gag order on advocates, which the petitioner argued violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, guaranteeing free speech. The petition questioned the validity of the order passed by the BCI, communicated through its letter dated April 12, 2024, that restrained all advocates from discussing the allegations of corruption.
The petitioner, represented by Sri Goutham A.R., Advocate, argued that the gag order imposed by the Bar Council infringed on the advocates’ right to free expression, which cannot be curbed without lawful justification. He further contended that such power to gag advocates was not conferred upon the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Representing the respondents, Senior Advocate Udaya Holla, appearing for the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Karnataka State Bar Council, distanced his clients from the BCI’s actions, maintaining that the gag order was based on a letter from an ex-Chairman of the State Bar Council and not at the behest of the current office bearers.
The Court’s Observations:
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in his detailed judgment, observed that the Bar Council of India did not have the authority to impose such a restraint on advocates’ freedom of speech. He remarked, “The direction, in the communication, is not against any particular individual but against the community of advocates itself… This, on the face of it, would amount to imposing a restraint on the speech of advocates.” The Court found that the gag order was not justified by any statutory provision within the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Section 7, which enumerates the functions and powers of the Bar Council of India.
The court underscored that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and any restriction on it must meet the rigorous tests laid down by the Supreme Court. The judge cited precedents, including Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras and Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International, to highlight that restrictions on free speech can only be imposed when necessary to protect public order or other compelling state interests, none of which were present in this case.
The High Court ruled that the BCI’s gag order lacked statutory backing and violated the fundamental rights of advocates, leading to its quashing. In his concluding remarks, Justice Nagaprasanna stated, “The power to pass gag orders cannot be inferred from Section 7(1)(g) of the Advocates Act. The order, therefore, is contrary to law and unsustainable.”
Case Details:
– Case Number: Writ Petition No. 11480 of 2024 (GM-RES)
– Petitioner: S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate and Member, Karnataka State Bar Council
– Respondents: Bar Council of India, Vishala Raghu, Chairman, Karnataka State Bar Council, Vinay Manglekar, Vice Chairman, Karnataka State Bar Council
– Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Goutham A.R., Advocate
– Counsel for Respondents: Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate with Sri T.G. Ravi, Advocate
