On December 6, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to prohibit individuals affiliated with political parties from becoming office-bearers of Bar Associations and Bar Councils. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that having a political ideology does not disqualify an individual from holding such positions, as this does not inherently affect the independence of bar bodies.
The petitioner argued that the independence of bar institutions could be compromised if politically affiliated individuals assumed leadership roles. However, Justice Kant countered this claim, citing examples of renowned advocates like Ram Jethmalani, who actively participated in politics while serving as the Chairman of the Bar Council of India and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. He further questioned if such individuals, known for their exceptional contributions, should be excluded from bar leadership due to their political affiliations.
The Court highlighted that having a political ideology does not imply a lack of competence or integrity. The bench rejected the plea, allowing the petitioner the liberty to pursue representations through other forums. Justice Kant also referred to current leaders like Kapil Sibal, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman of the Bar Council of India, asserting their right to hold office despite political affiliations.
The case, C.R. Jaya Sukin vs Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 795/2024), thus reaffirms that professional competence and commitment to the legal profession are not hindered by political leanings.
Lawcutor 