Today, On 6th December, The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the participation of politically affiliated lawyers in Bar Council elections, asserting there is “nothing wrong” with having a political ideology. The petition argued that such affiliations could compromise the neutrality of bar associations. However, the Court emphasized that political beliefs do not disqualify lawyers from contesting elections within their professional bodies.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition on Friday that sought to bar members of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils from being affiliated with political parties.
Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that bar associations are intellectual organizations and that having a political ideology among their members poses no issue.
The Court remarked,
“The bar bodies are intellectual bodies. Their functions won’t change just because the President or Chairman has an ideology. We are a country with a strong belief in democracy. We cannot direct Parliament to enact a law or something.”
The justices pointed out that prominent figures such as Senior Advocates Manan Kumar Mishra and Kapil Sibal, who lead the BCI and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), respectively, also have political backgrounds.
They questioned,
“What is wrong if any member of the bar has an ideology? This would also include political ideology. Do you want to oust Mr. Sibal from the presidency of SCBA? Do you want to oust Mr. Mishra from the Chairmanship of the Bar Council of India?”
The petition argued that, akin to judicial officers and government employees, members of the Bar Council should be restricted from holding political positions, claiming that such affiliations could undermine the independence of bar bodies, which are vital to the justice system. However, the Court found no basis for the claim that a bar member’s political beliefs were improper.
When the petitioner raised concerns specifically about the BCI and State Bar Councils, the Court humorously suggested that the petitioner “join a political party” to better understand those dynamics. The justices emphasized that they could not mandate Parliament to legislate on such issues.
Ultimately, the Court rejected the petition but allowed the petitioner to seek recourse from other appropriate authorities.
The petition had been filed by members of the legal community who expressed concerns over potential conflicts of interest, citing instances where political ideologies might influence decisions within legal organizations.
However, the Supreme Court made it clear that political beliefs do not automatically disqualify individuals from holding office in bar associations, as long as their actions align with the duties and responsibilities prescribed for such positions.
In dismissing the petition, the Court reinforced the principle of individual freedom, stating that political ideology does not invalidate one’s ability to serve in a professional capacity within a bar body.
The ruling highlights the autonomy of bar associations to manage their internal affairs without undue interference from political or ideological considerations.
This decision sparked debate within the legal community, with some welcoming the judgment as a reaffirmation of democratic rights, while others remain concerned about the potential for political influence in legal affairs. The judgment emphasizes the need for a balance between political beliefs and the professional responsibilities of those in charge of legal bodies.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
