Read Time: 07 minutes

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court has refused to entertain a plea seeking disciplinary proceedings against the Chairman of Bar Council of West Bengal, Mr. Ashok Kumar Deb, regarding his letter to the Chief Justice of India urging for the removal of the Calcutta High Court's Acting Chief Justice, Rajesh Bindal. The court stated that if the petitioners "feel that the statutory provisions have been violated, recourse is available under the statute and the redress can be made therein." 

Four members of the Bar Council of West Bengal had earlier protested against the letter issued by Mr. Deb raising grievance against the Acting Chief Justice in discharging his administrative duties.

Stating that all 4 protesting members of the Bar are themselves capable of taking decisions on seeking remedy for redressing the grievance raised by them, the Bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Subhasis Dasgupta clarified that the bench did not want to delve deep into the matter.

The petitioner, Adv. Akshya Kumar Sarangi was seeking initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Deb, contending that the Chairman had used the official letterhead of the Bar Council for percolating his own views which is in flagrant violation of the statutory provision and the rules governing Calcutta Bar Council, therefore, it amounted to his professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961.

While declining to entertain the plea, the court made some observations on the role of such statutory body in the perspective of the present case.

The Court said,

“The Bar and Bench are the two pillars of the judicial system. The synergy between the two is senital in que vive and co-ordination, co-operation in administration of the justice is required to be established in building the confidence of the public in the judicial system.”

Reiterating the observation in Brahmaprakash Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1954), the Court further added,

“The fair and legitimate criticism to a judgment in a healthy way is always welcome but if it is aimed with some motive and malice without any foundation on a real cause such errant person should be dealt with iron hands as it hampers the judicial system and fairness and impartiality of the Court in discharging their duties entrusted under the Constitution.”

Court also highlighted the observation made in Rajendra Sail Vs. MP High Court Bar Association and Ors. (2005) stating the case is somewhat similar to the present facts where the tool of media was used impacting upon the role and conduct of the judge and care and precaution is to be adhered to as they are supposed to act fairly and reasonably as opposed to capriciously and arbitrarily.

However, noting that the instant petition did not seek any action to be taken that may invite the court to come up heavily upon them who scandalise and tarnish the majesty and sanctity of the court, the bench said that what has been prayed was a direction or order upon the Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Deb who acted solely, without authority and in derogation with the interest of its members.

Therefore, concluding with the observations made by Justice Krishna Iyer in his celebrated judgment rendered in case of Re S. Mulgaookar reported in 1978, the Bench held,

“We do not intend to make any further comments thereon and leave the matter with caveat.”

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sarangi vs. Bar Council of West Bengal and Anr.

Edited by Shreya Agarwal