I wish to correct a glaring error in Blind Justice's letter (' Bar Council has no moral authority to judge others '). Whoever this is, he or she certainly does not represent 'the young members of the legal profession' of which I am a part of. I am not too presumptuous as Blind Justice is to claim that I represent them but I for one disagree with the views in the completely bias and unlearned letter and am aware of several of my peers do so as well (as one of them told me, 'He missed the boat completely').

I am not quite sure what exactly Blind Justice means when he says that us 'young lawyers' are waiting for Manjeet Singh Dhillon to come in from the 'cold'. Even if Blind Justice is referring to the rather chilly temperatures of meeting rooms in the Bar Council, I would tend to disagree. I have not waited for him and am actually wondering when Manjeet will stop standing for elections at the Bar Council (like all those others who have been sitting in the Bar Council long enough) to let new blood in.

Blind Justice is also rather shallow in taking to heart the issue of the postal ballot and running with it. In sum, Manjeet has made a big hue and cry about how some ballots have not been sent in accordance with the election rules. I will not descend into the peculiarities of its interpretation because it is ultimately a red herring which many have fallen for.

What are election rules for? To ensure that elections are carried out in a fair, proper and transparent manner. If there is a minor breach with no injustice caused to any party then I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, this is an attitude that is slowly and recently being adopted by our very own courts.

The real question that everybody should be asking is why is Manjeet making such a big deal about it especially when he was aware of such a practise being in place since1976? Whose interest is he representing when he takes an essentially internal Bar Council matter public? Why bring this matter up at a time when the Bar Council has more urgent and important issues to look into? I also feel that Manjeet is not being completely up front when he failed to disclose that he lost the 2004/2005 elections and that this brouhaha about the postal balloting is in respect of this elections.

When he lost his vote of no-confidence motion in the Bar Council, I wondered openly in an online forum whether Manjeet would resign. He wrote that he would not because in his view he did not fail. He claims that he obtained a near 30 percent backing to support his motion. Somehow that justifies his continued presence in the Bar Council. I must confess that to me, that reply is a little disappointing from someone of Manjeet's stature, experience and intelligence.

His no-confidence motion is effectively telling Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari that, 'I do not think you are fit to lead the Bar Council and that you are such a failure that we need to remove you from leading the Bar.' He has lost. Now more than 70 percent of the Bar Council members have told Manjeet that he is wrong and that they believe in Kuthubul's leadership.

Put in such a position, I would resign. Why would I be a part of an organisation of whose leadership I have no faith in? Perhaps this is a view of an inexperienced person with no other considerations in mind. Perhaps not. To bring back honour, dignity and responsibility, I humbly and with the greatest respect opine that Manjeet should have resigned after he lost. That he clings fervently to his position may prompt one to speculate what is it that makes sitting in the Bar Council so worthwhile that one would fight tooth and nail to stay or get in.

In my moments of despair at the state of our legal system I like to think of Justice as my mistress because with her kisses she banishes my frowns, with the faintest touch she quietly robes me and with the sweetest promises she lures me back to the profession with which I have become so disappointed with. And here I remain.

I am however certain I speak for many when I say that a person who has not the guts to put his name on the letter after making such wanton ambiguous accusations does not represent anybody least of all him/herself. May I suggest a name change from Blind Justice to Presumptuous Blindness?