[BREAKING] Amended Bar Council of India Rules violate fundamental rights: Plea filed in Supreme Court

The recently amended Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules that prohibit criticism of the regulatory body as well as State Bar Councils across the country, have been challenged before the Supreme Court (Rohini Amin & Anr v. Bar Council of India). .The petition filed by two law practitioners from Mumbai and Kerala sought urgent intervention by the Supreme Court to stay the operation of the impugned Rules and declare them unconstitutional and void..The amendment introduced two key changes to the BCI Rules - Sections V and V-A added to Part VI, Chapter II of the Rules. The same have now been challenged in the Supreme Court for being violative of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Articles 14, 19(1) (c)and 21..“It is unthinkable for a body like that of the Bar Council of India to bring an amendment of such ramifications, stifling the very freedom of speech and expression without which the very right to life is meaningless, keeping the Bar and the public at large in darkness,” the petition said. .It was contended that the BCI has no legislative powers, and the only power vested in it is to give effect to the Advocates Act. The amendments are ultra vires of this legislation, and BCI has no power to make any substantive law taking away or abridging legal and fundamental rights, the petition stated..Further, the petitioners submitted that the Rules do not protect the citizens but “any Court or judge or any member of judiciary or (against) State Bar Council or Bar Council of India” and that there are enough and more provisions to protect them.“Nobody today, would feel the need for any further legal protection to the judges. Far from a cry for providing further protection to the members of the judiciary, the demand of the civic society, today, is for greater freedom to fearlessly express injustice and sufferings in the justice delivery system.”.Another submission by the petitioners was that defamation falls within the ambit of private law and public authorities like the BCI cannot suffer a legal injury of this nature..While attempting to gauge the intent behind the Rules, the petitioners reached the irresistible conclusion that the BCI wants to protect itself against any kind of criticism.“An Advocate does not in law surrender his constitutional and legal rights, and the protection which Articles 14, 19 and 21 guarantee, only because he/she has enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council.”.Meanwhile, a similar plea had already been filed before the Kerala High Court.When that case came up for hearing on Wednesday, the High Court was informed that the amendments were yet to be approved by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana.According to proviso to Section 49(1) of the Advocates Act, the approval of the CJI is necessary before amendments to the Rules regarding conduct of advocates can come into force..[BREAKING] Chief Justice of India NV Ramana yet to approve amendments to BCI Rules: BCI informs Kerala High Court .The new amendments were notified in the gazette on June 25. The amended Rules that have faced widespread criticism, lay down that a lawyer making any statement which is indecent or derogatory, defamatory, motivated, malicious, or mischievous against any court, judge, State Bar Council or the BCI, can be a ground for suspension or cancellation of licence to practice law.Further, criticising or attacking any decision of any State Bar Council or Bar Council of India on public domain will also amount to "misconduct", which could attract disqualification or suspension.The new Rules also prevent members from publishing anything against any resolution or order of any State Bar Council or Bar Council of India or using abusive language towards the Bar Council, its office-bearers or members.Criticising Bar Council decision, motivated comment against judges ground for disqualification of lawyers: BCI amends Rules