The Bar Council and two others today objected to an application made by a lawyer to discontinue his suit against them on the grounds that the discontinuation will allow for legal principles already established in related applications to stand unchallenged.

Counsel Raja Aziz Addruse, for the Council, the Malaysian Bar and its former president RR Chelvarajah, said the discontinuation application by K Rajasegaran will deprive the defendants, the opportunity to test all previously decided principles from the case.

Rajasegaran sought the High Court's leave last week to discontinue his suit against the defendants on the grounds that his action has now become "academic, irrelevant and redundant", following the resumption of good relations between the Bar and the Bench now.

Justice RK Nathan fixed May 8 to decide whether to allow Rajasegaran to discontinue the suit.

Raja Aziz submitted that their concern was that a Court of Appeal decision arising from two related applications from this case will stand, if the suit was discontinued at this stage.

The Court of Appeal had on July 12 last year, dismissed two appeals by the defendants relating to the interim injunction and an application to strike out Rajasegaran's suit.

Unconstitutional

In their decision, the appellate court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the public to discuss openly the judiciary's conduct, adding that only parliament had the mandate to discuss judicial misbehaviour.

The Federal Court last November had dismissed a leave application by the defendants to appeal against the Court of Appeal rulings.

"That decision can be binding and if tomorrow the Bar wants to hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM), we will have to face the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal," said Raja Aziz.

He said that it was the duty of the court now to see that the discontinuance would not be detrimental to the defendants.

He also added that in the event the court decided to allow Rajasegaran to discontinue the suit, the defendants then should be given damages and costs for inconvenience caused.

Rajasegaran's counsel DP Vijandran said the defendants' concern regarding legal principles going unchallenged was not his client's concern.

"To test the principles, they must look for a situation and find ways to test and challenge the principles. It need not involve Rajasegaran," he said.

Magnanimous

He said that Rajasegaran's basic objection in his suit was to stop a proposed EGM by the Bar to discuss the judiciary at a time when the relations between the Bar and Bench were strained.

Vijandran also said that the court should not award costs to the defendants as Rajasegaran's discontinuation was not a result of a likelihood of defeat but because the matter had now become academic.

"He is being magnanimous in discontinuing the suit based on the change in circumstances," said Vijandran.

Rajasegaran filed the suit against the defendants for acting ultra vires of the Legal Profession Act 1976 by calling for an EGM to discuss allegations pertaining to the judiciary.

Rajasegaran had claimed that by calling for the EGM to discuss a proposed resolution calling for a Royal Commission to investigate the judiciary, the defendants had acted contemptuously, seditiously and abused their powers.

The Bar Council had proposed to call for the EGM to discuss allegations pertaining the judiciary as contained in an affidavit filed by Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent Raphael Pura in a defamation suit filed against him by two companies.

Judicial advice

Rajasegaran also obtained an interim injunction to stop the EGM one day before the meeting was to be held.

The suit then went on hearing and Nathan had fixed March 10 for decision. However on that day, instead of delivering his decision, Nathan requested the defendants and Rajasegaran to try and set aside their differences and settle the matter.

The Bar debated this advice at its annual general meeting on March 17, where its members unanimously rejected the call by Nathan.