New Delhi, Apr 8 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had directed the personal appearance of the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Bar Council of India (BCI) in a writ petition related to Bar Council elections.
A bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih, observed that the High Court should have accepted the apology and affidavit tendered by the BCI Secretary rather than compelling his travel from Delhi to Bengaluru.
“In the circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have graciously accepted the apology and affidavit of the Secretary of the Bar Council, rather than summoning his presence from Delhi to Bangalore,” the Bench stated.
“In that view of the matter, the impugned order, insofar as it directs the presence of the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the BCI, shall stand quashed and set aside.”
While a connected transfer petition was dismissed, the apex court clarified that the main writ petition
pending before the Karnataka High Court would proceed in accordance with the law.
The matter originated from a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate S Basavaraj before the Karnataka High Court, seeking a direction to the Karnataka State Bar Council and the Returning Officer to immediately conduct elections for the posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Upon notice being issued in the matter, the Secretary of the BCI addressed a letter to the Registrar General of the High Court, requesting a 15-day period to consult with counsel and determine the future course of action.
However, the High Court took exception to the fact that the communication was sent to the Registrar General instead of being filed in court.
Following this, the Secretary filed an affidavit withdrawing the letter and tendering an unconditional apology.
Despite this, the High Court summoned both the Secretary and Joint Secretary for a personal appearance.
In response, the Bar Council of India moved the Supreme Court challenging the summons.
During the hearing, Justice Gavai remarked, “Why should the Court (High Court) be so touchy?”
Although the initial draft of the Supreme Court’s order included this remark, it was later omitted at the request of Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, who appeared for the respondents.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of judicial grace, stating that a sincere apology in an institutional context should suffice, and reprimands or personal appearances should not be resorted to lightly.
The writ petition regarding Bar Council elections remains pending before the Karnataka High Court.
