AG Vijay Narayan asks to be dissociated from TN Bar Council Elections [Read Letter to BCI]

Advocate General for Tamil Nadu, Vijay Narayan has addressed a letter to Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Manan Kumar Misra, requesting that he be dissociated from the conduct of the Tamil Nadu State Bar Council Elections on apprehensions that it may be tainted by certain questionable practices..The questionable practice here refers to apparent efforts made to delay the conduct of regular elections to the state Bar Council, even though, the AG notes, there is a duty to ensure that elections are conducted as soon as possible. It has also been noted that the AG is expected to make all efforts to maintain the purity of the electoral process..In his letter, Narayan has referred to an application made for extension of the conduct of elections to the State Bar Council for furthering vested interests, even though the Supreme Court has set a deadline for its conduct..In particular, he has alleged that the appointees to the Special Committee of the State Bar Council excepting himself, i.e. Senior Advocates Singaravelan and Chandrasekharan have been acting at the behest of Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran, the State Bar Council’s representative in the BCI..Referring to the appointment of Singaravelan and Chandrashekar to the Special Committee of the State Bar Council, the AG has written,.“While I have great respect and regard for both of them…subsequent events have made me believe that both are acting at the behest of Mr. Prabhakaran, a candidate at the forthcoming election, who is the State Bar Council nominee in BCI, and who styles himself as co-chairman of BCI, a post, to my amusement, that out of the 18 members, barring the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary, there are seven other Co-chairman.”.The immediate concern raised in the letter is efforts being made to postpone the conduct of the TN Bar Council elections. After an application was made seeking extension of the election, the AG had rejected it, noting that the order of the Supreme Court must be implemented in letter and spirit, and further that the State Bar Council was in a position to implement it..In this regard, the letter states,.“A note was put up to me by the Secretary of the Bar Council Mr. Rajkumar, (he has been professionally associated with Mr. Prabhakaran for a number of years, a good man but he has expressed his helplessness in this situation) giving various reasons as to why the election should be delayed and I passed a detailed order rejecting all the reasons and directing him to publish the final electoral roll.”.However, the other Special Committee members appear to have overruled the decision of the AG, who is the Chairman of the Special Committee, without informing him of the same..“…it appears that the other two Special Committee members have overruled my decision and prevailed upon the Secretary to file an application for extension of time. They did not even have the courtesy to inform me and I had to learn about this from one of my friends in the Supreme Court. You may, if you think fit, direct BCTN to withdraw this application.”.The letter also contends that Prabhakaran may have ensured the appointments of Singaravelan and Chandrasekharan to the State Bar Council, for the reason that majority views in Special Committees are expected to prevail..“I was informed by the Secretary that in the case of the UP Bar Council, you have passed an order that the majority view in the Special Committee will prevail. Possibly, it is for this reason that Mr. Prabhakaran ensured that the two members appointed by BCI will do his bidding.”.Speaking to Bar & Bench, Vijay Narayan has raised two main concerns. Firstly, he pointed out that S Prabhakaran stands to gain if the Bar Council elections are prolonged..The term of other members of the State Bar Council will ordinarily come to an end after the expiry of five years, extendable by six months if elections are not conducted. However, the same is not applicable to BCI members, including Prabhakaran. If the elections are prolonged, Prabhakaran can continue to serve in his capacity as the State Bar Council representative in the BCI..Secondly, the two appointees to the Special Committee were nominated by the BCI without any consultation with the AG, even though he is the ex-officio Chairman of the Special Committee..His letter echoes this concern, that there ought to have been some form of consultation with the AG’s office, before the Special Committee members were appointed. In the alternative, the Chief Justice of the High Court could have been consulted..“The power being uncanalised, to infuse life into it, when the Chairman of the Special Committee is holding the high office of Advocate General for the State, I believe that he could have been consulted before making the appointments. .If BCI had any doubt about the neutrality of the Advocate General, it could have set an even healthier precedent by consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court. Being the head of the institution, the Chief Justice has intimate knowledge about the calibre of the advocates appearing before the High Court.”.The BCI has not indicated how the two nominees were decided upon. The AG has therefore questioned the basis on which the appointments were made..“What is the natural inference that one can draw?” remarked Narayan..He further pointed out,.“How can I ensure free and fair elections, if every decision that I take is going to be overruled..?“.In this background, it has been requested that the AG be dissociated from the entire process of conducting the election, although he is prepared to carry out the day-to-day functions of the Bar Council entrusted to the Special Committee under the Act. The letter states,.“In view of the schism in the Special Committee, and in view of the fact that the Advocate General has been reduced to a minority, I have grave apprehensions on my ability to conduct free and fair elections and I feel that it would not be proper on my part to associate the office of the Advocate General in an election which may be tainted by certain questionable practices. .I realise that this is an unusual step in view of the fact that the Advocate General has an ex-officio status, but in view of the facts stated above, I feel I have very little choice in the matter..While I am prepared to carry out the day-to-day functions of the Bar Council entrusted to the Special Committee under the Act, I would like to dissociate myself from the entire process of conducting the election.”.When asked about the allegations contained in this letter, Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran expressed that he had been shocked when he came to know of the same and denied involvement in any dirty politics. .He also expressed his anguish in coming to know of the unverified allegations in the letter..“…[a person having] stature like Advocate General, he should not do this… I do not know why he doing this. It is very unfortunate”, said Prabhakaran to Bar & Bench. .Prabhakaran also indicated that that the members, including himself, will be working to ensure that the Bar Council elections will be conducted within the date prescribed for it..As for the appointments made to the Special Committee, Prabhakaran has pointed out that it is for the BCI to make the same. The recommendation for the instant appointments, he said, were made in open court..“I am in no way connected with all these things”, said Prabhakaran, referring to the allegations made in the letter..In the context of the concerns raised by the AG however, the letter has called upon the BCI to decide whether a retired judge of the High Court, in consultation with the Chief Justice, can be appointed to oversee the electoral process. The letter states,.“You may give this matter some thought and decide whether it would be expedient to appoint a retired judge of the High Court, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, to oversee the entire electoral process.”.Read the letter below.