Advocate-General of Madras High Court opts out of holding election to Bar Council

Expresses inability to hold fair poll; points to schism in panel

CHENNAI: Vijay Narayan, Advocate-General of the Madras High Court and the ex-officio chairman of the special committee appointed to look into the affairs of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, has expressed his willingness to opt out from holding the election to the council in view of certain unpleasant things happening in the council.

In a communication to Manan Kumar Mishra, chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) in New Delhi on Monday, Narayan alleged that there was a “schism” in the special committee and that he had been reduced to a minority. He said he was nurturing a grave apprehension with regard to his ability to conduct a free and fair election to the TN State Bar Council and he felt it would not be proper on his part to associate the office of the Advocate-General in an election, which may be “tainted” by certain questionable practices, Narayan said.

“While I am prepared to carry out the day-to-day functions of the council, I would like to dissociate myself from the entire process of conducting the election. You may give this matter some thought and decide whether it would be expedient to appoint a retired judge, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to oversee the electoral process,” Narayan said.

The special committee had been formed under the Advocates Act, 1961, to govern the day-to-day affairs of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry as the term of the elected office-bearers had expired long ago.

The other two members of the committee are senior advocate R Singaravelan and former CBI counsel N Chandrasekharan.

Narayan said while he had great respect and regard for both of them, subsequent events had made him believe that they were acting at the behest of S Prabhakaran, a candidate for the ensuing council election, who is also the State Bar Council nominee to the BCI and claims himself as the “co-chairperson” of the BCI - a post not sanctioned by law. On the BCI website, Narayan said he did find, to his amusement, that of the 18 members, barring the chairman, vice-chairman and secretary, there were seven other co-chairpersons.

Out of order

Narayan alleged that there was a “schism” in the special committee and that he had been reduced to a minority. He said he was nurturing a grave apprehension with regard to his ability to conduct a free and fair election to the TN State Bar Council.  Narayan added that while the Supreme Court had set a deadline to hold the election and it was his intention to comply with that order in its letter and spirit, certain vested interests were trying to delay the election

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com