The Bar Council of India (BCI) was displeased with its completely “fruitless” and “meaningless” meeting with union law minister Kapil Sibal on 10 August. Sibal allegedly did not discuss any of the items on the meeting’s agenda and instead focused on the National Judicial Appointments Commission in which the BCI has been lobbying for representation.

In a 10 August press release, signed by BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and BCI convenor and spokesperson S Prabakaran, they wrote:

“The meeting of Union Law Minister with the Chairmen of the Bar Councils and Presidents of High Court Bar Associations completely proved fruitless for the Advocates at large and has ended in vain today. The Union Law Minister had invited the representatives of the Bar in order to interact on agendas like (a) Judicial reforms; (b) Use of information technology to improve the functioning of the Bar Council and Bar Associations; (c) Videography of court proceedings; (d) Measures to improve disposal of cases by courts; (e) Status of infrastructures of the Bar Councils and Bar Associations; (f) Welfare measures for the members of the Bar; (g) Problems of the Bar Councils and Bar Associations; But the meeting basically discussed only one issue.” […]

“The Bar Councils and Bar Associations were under the impression that some discussions with regard to the welfare measures and to strengthen the institutions of Lawyers would be discussed as suggested in agenda of Law Ministry, but the Law Minister wanted to discuss the issue of replacement of existing collegiums-system for appointment of Judges with the proposed draft Bill relating to “National Judicial Appointment Commission”.” […]

“The Bar Councils and Bar Associations expressed their solitary view that the Chairman or the representative of Bar Council of India and Chairman or representative of the concerned Bar Associations, State Bar Councils should form part of the Commission and without the involvement of Bar Councils and the Bar Associations, the Lawyers and the people of the country cannot accept the replacement of the existing collegiums system.”

“When the Presidents of Bar Associations and Chairmen of Bar Councils demanded fund for welfare of Lawyers, the Union Law Minister expresses his inability, and asked Lawyers’ bodies to approach the Finance Minister for this.”

After the meeting, the “majority of chairmen” of the state bar councils “expressed their displeasure with regard to the fruitless and futile meeting since nothing was discussed for the welfare of advocates”. Furthermore, because nothing had been discussed about strengthening bar associations, the bar council members “looked totally dissatisfied and as per them, it was a wastage of time”, said the press release.

The Judicial Appointments Bill which seeks to scrap the collegium system by which judges appoint judges, could not be taken up in the 8 August monsoon session of the parliament due to the absence of Sibal, as reported by Zee News.

The bill proposes to form a six member Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) headed by the Chief Justice of India and including the law minister, a Rajya Sabha nominee, the leader of the opposition and two Supreme Court justices.

Tamil Nadu Bar Council (TNBC) member E T Rajendran told the Times of India that including political parties in the JAC “will politicise the judiciary”, while BCI member S Prabhakaran who had signed the press release as “convenor and spokesperson” said that “If the government continues with the move, a huge protest is likely”.

Madras high court senior advocate M Ajmalkhan told the paper, “If they are good, the appointments will be good. If they are bad, the appointments will be bad. However, the commission system will definitely lead to the growth of a big lobby”.