Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court

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