The Malaysian Bar Council wants Chief Justice Dzaiddin Abdullah to set up a tribunal against a controversial judge for publicising his personal grouses against an appellate judge.

Bar Council chairperson Mah Weng Kwai said that Justice RK Nathan's "public display of his personal grouses" against Justice Gopal Sri Ram while delivering a judgement, had nothing to do with the case and was "deplorable".

"This, in the council's view, is a proper instance for appropriate steps to be taken to have that part of the judgement expunged," Mah said in a press statement today.

"The council further calls on the chief justice to make appropriate representations to the prime minister to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to set up a tribunal against Justice Nathan under Article 125 of the Federal Constitution," he added.

In a widely publicised statement on July 31 concerning a motor accident matter, Nathan, who is a Penang High Court Judge said that he had become the "target for personal vilification" by Sri Ram.

Nathan's outburst caused a stir in the legal community as it is an established convention that judges of a superior court may give an opinion on a judgement of a lower court judge.

Adhere to convention

But it is unprecedented and not acceptable for a judge of a lower court to make personal attacks on a judge of a superior court.

Mah said it is critical to the integrity of the judicial system that this convention is adhered to as what Nathan had said was "unprecedented, scandalous and unjustified".

"Public confidence in the judiciary has been eroded and undermined by his conduct," he said.

In his judgement, Nathan appeared to have vented his anger against Sri Ram for remarking a few days earlier that the former had "muddied the very stream of justice that a judge by his oath of office has sworn to keep pure".

The judge also took offence when he was said by Sri Ram to have been "vindictive and passing judgement to satisfy [his] ego".

What Sri Ram had said was that "if the contempt proceedings were unnecessarily initiated and vindictively pursued purely for the personal ego of the judge, it would bring indignity to the court".

On the earlier remark by Sri Ram, Mah said without more than what was said, the Bar Council does not see how it can be described as a personal attack.

"On another remark, the meaning of the statement was very different from what Nathan appears to have construed it to be. The statement appears to be a general statement of principle rather than a personal attack," said Mah.

In strong language

"Though couched in strong language, it is a criticism of conduct in a particular instance, not an attack on the general attribute of the person involved," he added.

Meanwhile, Mah said that there were several comments in Nathan's July 31 judgement which amounted to "personal attacks" against Sri Ram.

The comments, he said, include Nathan's accusations that Sri Ram attempts to "play God" and to claim infallibility, and does not practise what he preaches.

"Added to these are the insinuations that Justice Sri Ram is not a gentleman and that he cannot possibly appreciate the role of a judge of first instance since he had never been one," said Mah.

"The council is aghast at such undignified conduct," he added.

Mah said the council can think of no justification for Nathan to have addressed his grouses in the course of a judicial proceeding the subject matter of which is not related to the personal concerns that the judge has used the occasion to ventilate.

"To have done so is completely out of line with judicial dignity and decorum. It amounts to an abuse of judicial proceedings.

"It also calls into question the all-important ability of a judge to sit in judgement of a case free from the influence of any emotions or factors extraneous to the case," he added.