CHENNAI: The rift between Advocate-General Vijay Narayan, ex-officio chairman of the Bar Council TN and Puducherry (BCTN&P), and two members of the special committee constituted to administer the functions of the council, has come to the fore with both parties trading allegations over the conduct of elections to the council.
However, the two members have agreed to a proposal of Narayan to hold the elections under the supervision of retired judges of Madras High Court. Earlier on January 15, Narayan had shot off a letter to the Bar Council of India in New Delhi, expressing his willingness to opt out from election to the council, in view of ‘unpleasant’ things happening in the council, more particularly within the special panel.
In a communication to BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, he had alleged there was ‘schism’ in the special committee and that he was reduced to a minority. He said he was nurturing a grave apprehension with regard to his ability to conduct a free and fair election felt that it would not be proper on his part to associate the office of Advocate-General in an election which may be ‘tainted’, he had said.
“While I am prepared to carry out the day-to-day functions of the council, I would like to dissociate myself from the election. 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 Madras HC, to oversee the entire electoral process”, Narayan had added.
While he has great respect for both of them, subsequent events have made him to believe that they are acting at the behest of S Prabhakaran, a candidate who is also the State Bar Council nominee to BCI and claims himself as the ‘co-chairman’ of BCI, a post which is not sanctioned by law.The invitation extended to S Gurumurthy, a well known political commentator, auditor and editor of Thuglak Tamil magazine, to participate in the new lawyers enrolment function on December 29 appears to be the main reason for the stand-off between the parties.
Reacting to this, the two members – senior advocate R Singaravelan and CBI former Public Prosecutor N Chandrasekharan – in a signed letter to BCI on January 16, contended that Vijay Narayan was acting on his own. “Treating the other two members as his subordinates”, he had issued various directions to council secretary on his own, without their knowledge.They stated that they had never shown any favouritism to Prabhakaran. They treated him only as a member of BCI in New Delhi, they added in their 11-page letter.
“We do not want to be cause for any confusion in the administration of the Bar council and hence, we have no other option except to take a decision collectively on the basis of the majority in the interest of the advocates and the BCTN&P. If such a collective and well-considered decision taken by us is questioned by Vijay Narayan, it is for the BCI to react and we are bound by that,” they said.