Triple Riding On Motorcycle Not Automatic Proof Of Contributory Negligence; High Court Can Enhance Award Even Without Cross-Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Statutory Power To Lay Electricity Lines Prevails Over Private Land Claims; Landowners Entitled To Compensation, Not Obstruction: Bombay High Court Beer & Whisky Are Allied/Cognate Goods; Use Of Identical Mark For Spirits Infringes 'Godfather' Beer Trademark: Delhi High Court Minimum Percentile Fixed By Indian Nursing Council For B.Sc. Nursing Admissions Must Be Strictly Adhered To; Cannot Be Diluted Without Approval: Calcutta High Court Bride Not Expected To Keep All Gold In Personal Custody In Matrimonial Home; Entrustment To Husband Presumed: Kerala High Court Default Imprisonment Not Additional Punishment But Coercive Measure To Secure Fine; Cannot Become 'De Facto' Debtors' Prison: Karnataka High Court Mahant Is Only A Custodian Of Deity’s Property, Assets Gifted For Temple Maintenance Belong To Public Trust: Gujarat High Court Pendency Of Criminal Antecedents Alone Not A Ground To Deny Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In Abduction Case After 3-Year Delay In FIR Beer Falls Under ‘IMFL’ Category; No Obligation To Collect TCS On Sales Prior To June 2003: Telangana High Court Dismissal From Service For Negligence Without Proved Misappropriation Is Disproportionate: Orissa High Court Merit In A Case Does Not Justify Disregarding Statutory Delay: NCDRC Upholds Dismissal Of Star Health's Appeal Filed With 442-Day Delay Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) Arbitration Act Commences Only From Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Award: Madhya Pradesh High Court Government Employee Not Eligible For Regular Promotion During Pendency Of Vigilance Proceeding: Orissa High Court Arrest Warrants Against Directors Under Section 72 CP Act Should Be Last Resort; Proper Procedure Must Be Followed: NCDRC

Bar Council Cannot Usurp Court's Powers to Restrict Advocates' Right to Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Quashes Bar Council’s Gag Order

11 October 2024 8:51 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Karnataka High Court, in S. Basavaraj v. Bar Council of India & Others, quashed a gag order imposed by the Bar Council of India on advocates of the Karnataka State Bar Council. The order had restrained advocates from making public statements regarding alleged mismanagement and corruption within the Bar Council. The High Court ruled that such a gag order violated the advocates' fundamental right to free speech, noting that the Bar Council lacked the statutory authority to impose such restrictions.

S. Basavaraj, a senior advocate, filed a writ petition challenging the Bar Council of India's April 2024 order, which prohibited members of the Karnataka State Bar Council and other advocates from speaking publicly about allegations of mismanagement during a State Level Advocates Conference held in August 2023. The Bar Council had initiated a probe into these allegations but simultaneously imposed a gag order to prevent further damage to the council's reputation.

Violation of Free Speech: The court emphasized that the gag order infringed upon the advocates' fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which can only be restricted by law and not by a statutory body like the Bar Council of India​.

Lack of Statutory Authority: The court found that the Bar Council's powers of "general supervision and control" over State Bar Councils did not include the authority to impose gag orders on advocates. The court observed that gag orders could only be issued by courts, and only in cases where it is necessary to prevent substantial risks to the fairness of a trial​.

Procedural Fairness: The court criticized the Bar Council for acting beyond its legal mandate, ruling that its actions were "de hors" the law. The Bar Council had overstepped its role by trying to suppress public discourse on matters of corruption without proper legal justification​.

The High Court quashed the Bar Council of India's gag order, declaring it unconstitutional and unsustainable. The court reaffirmed the importance of free speech and transparency within the legal profession and emphasized that only courts could impose such restrictions in accordance with the law.

This judgment reinforces the protection of advocates' right to free speech and limits the powers of statutory bodies like the Bar Council from infringing on constitutional rights. The decision ensures that public discussions on issues of professional ethics and misconduct within the legal community remain open.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2024

S. Basavaraj v. Bar Council of India & Others​.

Latest Legal News