New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said there is no law which prohibits an active member of a political party to contest the election of Bar bodies and it cannot enact a law either, saying, "in democracy, there is always scope for different ideologies but that should be in conformity with the Constitution".
The matter came up before a bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The bench said in a democracy, there is always scope for different ideologies but that should be in conformity with the Constitution. "There is no law, which prohibits an active member of a political party to contest the election of Bar bodies. You want us to enact a law. Sorry, it can't be done," said the bench.
Senior advocate Sirajuddin, appearing the petitioner advocate Jaya Sukin before the bench.
The bench cited legal luminary Ram Jethmalani, and noted that he held the post of Bar Council of India chairperson and served as the president of the SCBA. The bench asked, "If an office-bearer of the Bar has a political ideology, what's wrong with that?"
The apex court made these observations while declining to entertain a PIL by an advocate seeking directions to the Centre and Bar Council of India, stating those contesting elections of Bar bodies should not be a member of a political party.
During the hearing today, the bench further queried the petitioner's counsel, "you want to oust Mr Kapil Sibal as the president of SCBA (Supreme Court Bar Association)? You want to oust (Manan Kumar) Mishra (Rajya Sabha member from Bihar) as the chairman of the Bar Council of India?"
Citing Jethmalani, the bench said that he was also in Parliament and was affiliated with different political parties. "Do you want the country to be deprived of the views and contribution of these brilliant multi-talented persons?" the bench asked, adding, "we don’t think that association with political parties will have any effect".
The bench wondered, how could it ask a person, associated with a political party, not to contest elections of a Bar body. Sensing that court is not willing to entertain the plea, petitioner's counsel sought a direction to refer the issue to the Law Commission, but the bench said it was not going to pass any such direction. The bench allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea.
