FEAR, no doubt, a psychological barrier, restricts a man from being performed, if allowed unchecked, it will not alone ruin his life but also those relying on him!
NO FEAR, no doubt, a psychological impetus, increases man’s tenacity from being performed, if not watched, he will demonize the Society!
So Question is FEAR or NOT TO FEAR?
Fear or not to fear are contributory factors for a man to perform. However, fear must be realistic, for example, fear for the law is important, but, when a law or a rule of law restricts you from being discharged your professional duties or personal responsibilities then needless to say – you are not supposed to fear for such law or rule of law! Confused?
Think this;
“Had fear of Jail sneaked onto the minds of our Forefathers we would not have attained freedom. Sedition law was there in the 19th Century and it is also present today so how to react to a situation – Fear or not to fear is a matter of commonsense and triggered by a situation in which we are in.”
Recently Bar Council of India [BCI] came out with two sets of rules; that Advocates should not speak of anything deplorable in the media, against the;
1.] Court / Judge / Judiciary
2.] Bar Council of India or State Bar Council
The rules say, provided an Advocate violate those rules, he shall be removed from the State Bar Council [SBC] in which he is enrolled. Which mean he can’t practice for certain period or for life-time and he can’t participate in the Elections to the BCI / SBC. It is SBC or BCI or both would decide quantum of punishment against the defiant Advocate.
No wonder, as usual, we have rider in our Statute Book, here too is a “rider” and it reads as follows;
“Provided that a healthy and bonafide criticism made in good faith, shall not be treated as a misconduct.”
From the “rider” one would say, the seriousness expressed by the BCI in coming out with those rules are genuine, but it is not! How?
What is healthy and bonafide criticism made in good faith?
Legally speaking there is no yardstick to measure what is healthy and bonafide criticism made in good faith! Even there is no perfect definition available in the public domain and / or we have any legal terminology for such stanza! Because ambiguity exist in those rules. Then how’s an Advocate’s averments in the media could be considered as he spoke in good faith or bad faith?
So unless a Trial is conducted against an Advocate no healthy and bonafide criticism made in good faith be discovered. Until than what will happen with that Advocate? Fear would grip his mind or psychologically fear would thrust upon him and some may even lose their mental balance. To a max, such fear would also influence his family to force him to give-up!
So why such rules are now? And how those Advocates were handled in the past?
The fact is, BCI under the garb of protecting itself and its progenies from any form of criticisms in the public domain against them, included Court, Judge and Judiciary in its rule book. Otherwise, an established procedure with regard to any uncalled for humiliation of Court, Judge or Judiciary – inside or outside of the Court, Advocate was penalized under Contempt of Court Act and some Judges even referred such contempt cases of those erring Advocates to SBC for disciplinary action as part of their Judgment / Order.
Now with these rules, apprehensions are there that BCI and SBC can intervene suo moto against the Advocate, and punish him arbitrarily, repudiating or rejecting his explanation for his public discourse against them lest forget about the Court, Judge or Judiciary! So witch-hunt against an Advocate and / or against his affiliates can never be denied!
Even otherwise, BCI and SBC are like any other government run institutions and their activities are no far from scrutiny [likes of any private companies] – so they are within the ambit of questioning and answering and they can’t shy away from their responsibility of being answering – be it in a media or in private. We must remember, without criticism, inventions would not have happened and the human transformation would not have reached the stage of today, so let wisdom prevail.
Note: Now reports are emerging that a Committee was formed to review those two rules!