The Karnataka High Court has overturned a gag order from the Bar Council of India, affirming advocates’ constitutional right to free speech. The case stemmed from allegations of financial mismanagement linked to a State Level Advocates Conference. Justice Nagaprasanna ruled the gag order unconstitutional and beyond the BCI’s authority, reinforcing legal protections for advocates.
Karnataka: In a landmark ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a gag order issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) against all members of the Karnataka State Bar Council, reinforcing the constitutional right to free speech and expression for advocates. The judgment, delivered by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, emerged from a writ petition filed by senior advocate S. Basavaraj, who challenged the gag order after allegations of financial mismanagement during a 2023 State Level Advocates Conference.
The controversy that led to this case began in August 2023, when the Karnataka State Bar Council held a State Level Advocates Conference in Mysuru. Following the event, accusations of financial mismanagement surfaced, prompting S. Basavaraj to file a criminal complaint against the Karnataka State Bar Council’s Chairman and Vice Chairman, Mr. Vishala Raghu and Mr. Vinay Mangekar, respectively. The complaint alleged that the funds related to the conference were misappropriated, sparking widespread discussions within the legal community.
In response to this, on April 12, 2024, the Bar Council of India issued a gag order, prohibiting advocates from publicly discussing the financial allegations. This move was seen as a retaliatory action, curbing open dialogue among advocates regarding potential misconduct in their professional body.
Read Also: BCI Seeks Suspension of New Criminal Laws Amid Nationwide Protests
The central issue of the case revolved around whether the BCI had the legal authority to impose such a gag order on its members. Basavaraj, represented by Advocate Sri Goutham A.R., argued that the gag order violated his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to free speech. Basavaraj contended that the BCI lacked the statutory authority under the Advocates Act, 1961, to silence advocates, especially when no public safety or order was at stake.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Udaya Holla, representing the respondents (the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Karnataka State Bar Council), distanced his clients from the BCI’s actions. Holla maintained that the gag order was issued based on a letter from an ex-Chairman of the Bar Council and not at the instigation of the current office bearers.
Justice Nagaprasanna, in his comprehensive judgment, ruled that the Bar Council of India lacked the authority to impose such a broad restraint on advocates’ freedom of speech. He observed that the gag order targeted the entire community of advocates, which amounted to an unconstitutional restriction on their rights. The Court found that the BCI’s order did not align with any statutory provision under the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Section 7, which outlines the BCI’s powers.
Justice Nagaprasanna further emphasized that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and any attempt to restrict it must meet strict constitutional tests. He referenced key rulings such as Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras and Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International to highlight that restrictions on free speech are only permissible under exceptional circumstances, such as the protection of public order, none of which applied in this case.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court held that the Bar Council of India’s gag order lacked legal justification and violated the advocates’ constitutional rights. Justice Nagaprasanna ruled that the order was contrary to law and unsustainable, reiterating that the power to impose gag orders cannot be inferred from the Advocates Act.
This ruling has set a significant precedent in protecting the freedom of expression for advocates across India, affirming that no legal body can curtail the fundamental rights of its members without lawful cause.