Justice R.K. Nathan today discharged contempt proceedings against Bar Council president Sulaiman Abdullah after accepting his explanation that he had no intention to allege bias on the part of the judge.

Yesterday, Sulaiman said he instructed his lawyer Mohamad Ariff Yusoff to ask Nathan to disqualify himself from hearing an injunction application because his (Nathan's) son was a member of the Bar.

Sulaiman was asked to show cause by Nathan when Ariff raised a preliminary objection to the hearing on grounds that the judge had an interest in the matter. Nathan had asked Sulaiman to show the court what he meant when he said Nathan had an "interest" in the proceedings.

Sulaiman's counsel Shafie Abdullah this morning submitted that neither Sulaiman nor the other respondents in the case meant to allege real bias on the part of Nathan, rather it was a perception of bias which could be held by members of the public should the judge come to a particular decision in the case at hand.

Nathan accepted Sulaiman's explanation although he said Sulaiman's interpretation of the case law "demonstrated an ignorance of the law".

Nathan then discharged Sulaiman from contempt proceedings against him but said that this "does not mean I think he is right."

"I will give him a benefit of the doubt...however misguided his views may be," Nathan said.

Sulaiman is among the 12 respondents named in an action by lawyer K. Raja Segaran to seek a declaration from the court that the extraordinary general meeting of the Malaysian Bar scheduled for this Friday and the purported notice of the meeting is ultra-vires the Legal Profession Act, contemptuous and seditious.

Raja Segaran is seeking an interim injunction to stop the meeting from taking place on Friday.

Shafie had relied on the English case of R v Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrates, ex parte Pinochet (No2) in his submissions where it was held that a judge had to disqualify himself from sitting on a case in which he had an interest and the interpretation of interest was not confined to pecuniary interest but included promotion of a cause.

Shafie submitted that as the Bar has to promote certain causes, particularly in light of the calls for the EGM on Friday, members of the Bar are tied up with the cause in some way or another as members would either support or oppose the cause propagated.

Shafie explained that should the judge grant or refuse to grant an injunction, the decision would be perceived by the public as reflecting the views of his son who is a member of the Bar.

"It is a perception question and perception is everything, especially when involving an arbiter like your Lordship," said Shafie. "It is a mere perception of whatever your Lordship decides. The final result is that your Lordship is advancing a cause."

"This is not a question peculiar to your Lordship nor peculiar to any judge having a son or daughter as a member of the Bar," he added. "However, if the son or daughter is in the Attorney-General's chambers, then the argument does not apply."

Nathan then asked opposing counsel D.P. Vijandran if he had any objections to Shafie's interpretation of the law.

Vijandran said he had objections to the interpretation brought up as a preliminary issue and cited a paragraph in the Locabail case relied upon by the respondents yesterday which made a distinction between private causes and public causes and where it was stated that there could be a possibility of bias when a person is engaged in a private activity but not so when it is a matter of public concern.

Vijandran contended that as the issue at hand - the holding of the Bar Council EGM and the proposed resolution - was a public issue and "an offence against the entire public realm", Locabail would not apply and that there was no grounds for the original objection.

Nathan then explained that the question facing the court today was one of contempt and whether the views espoused by Sulaiman or his group of lawyers were correctly held or not, the issue was whether he was satisfied by the explanation given.

He said that an allegation of bias was a serious offence and merits a custodial sentence in his view, more so if the person alleging it is the president of the Bar Council.

"All the more (in this case), the court will look into seeing if there was a possible explanation which awaits a discharge of the charge at hand ... however misguided Haji Sulaiman and the other defendants have been of the law," he said.

Nathan held that, having heard arguments from both the petitioner and the respondents, he is satisfied that there is a possible explanation as to the objection raised by the respondent counsel and is willing to give Sulaiman the benefit of the doubt and discharged him from contempt proceedings against him.

Nathan further urged parties not to bring up matters concerning family members in legal disputes.

"It has never been the case that having a son or daughter who as member of the Bar is a cause for disqualification of a judge," he said. "The arguments put forward would have sufficed without bringing up my son."

Nathan added that it was a shamed day when a party applies to disqualify a judge merely because his son is a member of the Bar. "I would be proud to have my son argue before me in court but because of allegations of bias, I would have to disqualify myself."

Nathan adjourned the court to tomorrow when the hearing for the injunction would continue.