The Supreme Court said in a democracy there was always space for different ideologies but those beliefs had to be in conformity with the Constitution.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan made the remark while refusing 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.
“In 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,” the bench said.
Senior advocate Sirajuddin, appearing for PIL petitioner advocate Jaya Sukin, said if the contesting candidates were allowed to be active members of political parties, they would push for their elections.
The bench, however, remarked, “If an office-bearer of the Bar has a political ideology, what’s wrong with that? 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?” Justice Surya Kant referred to the contributions of legal luminary Ram Jethmalani, noting the late stalwart held the post of Bar Council of India chairperson and served as the president of the SCBA.
“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? Bar bodies are a group of elite members of the society. We don’t think that association with political parties will have any effect,” the bench underlined.
The top court further asked when the statute was silent on this issue, how could it ask a person, associated with a political party, not to contest elections of a bar body.
“In our opinion, you should also join some political party and have some experience,” Justice Kant said in lighter vein.
Sensing the mood of the court, Sirajuddin sought a direction to refer the issue to the Law Commission, but the bench said it was not going to pass any such direction and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea.
