BCI FILED A COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE PLEA THAT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF SECTION 9 OF THE ADVOCATE'S ACT, 1961

The Bar Council of India filed a counter-affidavit opposing the plea that challenged the validity of section 9 of the Advocate's Act, 1961. BCI also disputed the maintainability of the writ petition.

Adv SR Raghunath appearing for BCI, argued that there is not a single statement in the Petitioner's affidavit to show that section 9 of the Act violates the constitution of India.

Adv Karthik Ranganath, appearing in person, contended that the Disciplinary committee should constitute retired judges and not the present scheme where lawyers decide cases involving other lawyers. The Petitioner further said that as per the counter affidavit, the BCI treats complaints as domestic enquiry. BCI asserted that once a complaint is before the Disciplinary Committee, the authority vests on the BCI. Every complaint is prosecuted and decided by the Committee, which is also composed of Lawyers.

In reply to BCI's contention mentioned above, Adv Karthik argued that there is an element of bias involved as lawyers adjudicate cases against lawyers. "A person cannot be the judge of his own case".

He further said that after BCI made its recommendations, the Law Commission of India proposed to include District Judges at the state level and retired HC Judges when the proceeding involves the national lever.

The matter was heard by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu. The Petition requested the bench to allow him to file a rejoinder in response to the counter affidavit. Moreover, the Union of India is yet to file its response, and thereof the court adjourned the matter for a period of 4 weeks. 

Author: Papiha Ghoshal