The High Court will hear tomorrow afternoon details of a Bar Council meeting that had resolved to call for an extraordinary general meeting to demand a royal commission to look into judicial misconduct.

Council member R Rajasingam was to have provided to the court the minutes of the meeting today but the hearing was adjourned as Rajasingam was not present in court.

It is learnt that Rajasingam could not come to Kuala Lumpur on time from Penang as he was involved in a case there.

Justice RK Nathan, after a meeting with lawyers from all parties in chambers, decided to hear the evidence from Rajasingam tomorrow afternoon.

Rajasingam was put on the stand on Monday but was not able to produce the minutes of the meeting as he did not have them with him ([#1]Bar official ordered to give details of council meeting[/#], Oct 9)

"Some of the minutes have been misplaced. I may have some of them but I don't have it now," he said, adding that they could be at his office in Penang.

Rajasingam was to testify in the hearing involving the points of law in a suit filed by lawyer K Rajasegaran against the Bar Council, former chairman RR Chelvarajah and the Malaysian Bar.

Stay application

Meanwhile, the court of appeal will hear an application tomorrow morning to stop the hearing before Nathan, pending an appeal against his earlier ruling that the case will be decided after hearing submissions on points of law and not the whole substantive hearing.

If the appeal is allowed, the hearing which has been ongoing before Nathan will be unnecessary.

In his suit, Rajasegaran claims that the proposed resolution, which among others calls for a royal commission of inquiry on judicial misconduct as contained in a notice dated Oct 12, 1999, and the EGM, were ultra vires the Legal Profession Act.

Rajasegaran is represented by DP Vijandran and the defendants by Malik Imtiaz, Dhinesh Baskaran and G Rajasingam.

The Attorney-General's chambers are also holding a watching brief in the case, citing "public interest" for their presence as well as the fact the council was being investigated by the police under the Sedition Act as a result of a police report lodged against the council.