The High Court today allowed an application by lawyer K Rajasegaran to discontinue his suit against the Malaysian Bar and two others on the grounds that the good relationship between the Bar and the Bench now has made the suit "unnecessary".

"I agree with the plaintiff that the suit has now become academic. The relationship between the Bar and the Bench are at an all time high now," said justice RK Nathan in allowing the discontinuation.

"Is there a need for the suit to continue?," he asked, adding that it was rhetorical to pursue the matter following the retirement of the former chief justice Eusoff Chin.

He said that this was a "right moment for wounds to heal between the Bar and Bench" following the calls for a good relationship by the new chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah.

Nathan also ordered costs arising from the action to be borne by the respective parties.

Rajasegaran sought the court's leave to discontinue his suit against the Malaysian Bar, the Bar Council and its former chairman RR Chelvarajah on grounds that his action had now become "academic, irrelevant and redundant" following the restoration of a good relationship between the Bar and the Bench.

Principles

The defendants objected to the application on the grounds that the discontinuation would allow for legal principles arising from other applications decided in the suit to stand unchallenged and deprive them the opportunity to test the principles on appeal.

The defendants were specifically concerned that a Court of Appeal decision arising from two related applications from the case will stand if the suit was discontinued at this stage.

The Court of Appeal had on July 12 last year 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 the Court of Appeal rulings.

Rajasegaran filed the suit against the defendants for acting ultra vires of the Legal Profession Act 1976 by calling for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to discuss allegations pertaining the judiciary, particularly the conduct of Eusoff.

Rajasegaran had claimed that by calling for the EGM to discuss the proposed resolution calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the judiciary, the defendants acts were "contemptuous, seditious and an abuse of their powers".

The Bar Council had proposed to call for the EGM to discuss allegations pertaining to 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.

Settlement

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

The suit then went on for hearing after which Nathan fixed March 10 for decision. However on that day, instead of delivering his decision, Nathan asked the defendants and Rajasegaran to try and settle the matter between themselves.

The Bar then debated this advice at its annual general meeting on March 17. Lawyers present at the meeting unanimously rejected the call by Nathan.