Tweet
The Supreme Court has vacated its interim order staying the Madras High Court judgment suspending R.K. Chandramohan's status as member and consequently as Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry on the basis of a letter written by Justice R. Regupathi to the then High Court Chief Justice H.L. Gokhale on an alleged incident that happened in his chambers.
Acting on a special leave petition filed by Mr. Chandramohan challenging the judgment, a Bench of Justices D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu on December 15, 2010 stayed the direction given to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to take over the complaint filed against him and to dispose it of in accordance with law. On January 10, this interim order was extended.
During the resumed hearing on Monday, the Bench, after hearing senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the appellant, and counsel Prashant Bhushan, appearing for respondent Elephant G. Rajendran, vacated its stay order. It asked the BCI to conduct the enquiry, after taking over the complaint from the State Bar Council, independently and uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court.
When Mr. Rohatgi contended that the High Court had no power to suspend the State Bar Council membership of the appellant, Justice Jain said: “The allegations against him are very very serious. When such conduct of the appellant has been projected, do you mean to say the High Court should still keep quiet? In such a situation, we are not prepared to accept your contention that the High Court had no power to issue such directions.”
When Mr. Rohatgi said the court could not interfere in the functions of the BCI, a statutory body, and give a direction to probe a complaint, Justice Jain observed: “See the conduct of the BCI. Despite notice to the BCI, no one entered appearance.”
Charge handed over
Mr. Rohatgi said the appellant had handed over charge to the State Advocate-General and since elections to the Bar Council were to take place, he would file nominations next week.
Mr. Bhushan said the High Court should have initiated contempt proceedings against the appellant but it was very mild. He said the appellant trying to influence a judge in a bail matter was the grossest interference in the administration of justice.
On Mr. Rohatgi's submission that the appellant was inclined to contest the elections, Mr. Bhushan said if he was elected member of the State Bar Council again when proceedings were pending before the BCI, he would influence the proceedings.
“Not at all serious”
Mr. Chandramohan, in his appeal, said: “The fact that the judge [Justice Regupathi, since retired] even after the reported incident on June 12, 2009 of the alleged meeting in his chamber by the petitioner proceeded to hear the petition immediately after that and disposed if for want of further particulars discloses that the said alleged incident was not at all serious and that it was not amounted to interference in the administration of justice.”
Acting on a special leave petition filed by Mr. Chandramohan challenging the judgment, a Bench of Justices D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu on December 15, 2010 stayed the direction given to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to take over the complaint filed against him and to dispose it of in accordance with law. On January 10, this interim order was extended.
During the resumed hearing on Monday, the Bench, after hearing senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the appellant, and counsel Prashant Bhushan, appearing for respondent Elephant G. Rajendran, vacated its stay order. It asked the BCI to conduct the enquiry, after taking over the complaint from the State Bar Council, independently and uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court.
When Mr. Rohatgi contended that the High Court had no power to suspend the State Bar Council membership of the appellant, Justice Jain said: “The allegations against him are very very serious. When such conduct of the appellant has been projected, do you mean to say the High Court should still keep quiet? In such a situation, we are not prepared to accept your contention that the High Court had no power to issue such directions.”
When Mr. Rohatgi said the court could not interfere in the functions of the BCI, a statutory body, and give a direction to probe a complaint, Justice Jain observed: “See the conduct of the BCI. Despite notice to the BCI, no one entered appearance.”
Charge handed over
Mr. Rohatgi said the appellant had handed over charge to the State Advocate-General and since elections to the Bar Council were to take place, he would file nominations next week.
Mr. Bhushan said the High Court should have initiated contempt proceedings against the appellant but it was very mild. He said the appellant trying to influence a judge in a bail matter was the grossest interference in the administration of justice.
On Mr. Rohatgi's submission that the appellant was inclined to contest the elections, Mr. Bhushan said if he was elected member of the State Bar Council again when proceedings were pending before the BCI, he would influence the proceedings.
“Not at all serious”
Mr. Chandramohan, in his appeal, said: “The fact that the judge [Justice Regupathi, since retired] even after the reported incident on June 12, 2009 of the alleged meeting in his chamber by the petitioner proceeded to hear the petition immediately after that and disposed if for want of further particulars discloses that the said alleged incident was not at all serious and that it was not amounted to interference in the administration of justice.”