Lawyer K Rajasegaran today sought the High Court's leave to discontinue his suit against the Malaysian Bar and two others on grounds that his action has now become "academic, irrelevant and redundant".

Rajasegaran's counsel DP Vijandran told justice RK Nathan that the suit is no longer meaningful as the relationship between the Bar and the Bench now is "at an all-time high".

Vijandran said that Rajasegaran had filed the suit to stop the Bar from going ahead with its proposed extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on Nov 20, 1999 to pass a resolution which he said would subvert good relations between the Bar and the Bench.

Counsel for the defendants, Malik Imtiaz said the Bar had to discuss the legal implications arising out of the proposed discontinuation and sought an adjournment until April 27.

To this, Nathan told him that as a general principle, Rajasegaran had a right to discontinue his suit at any stage of the hearing.

"One can't force him to continue his suit," said Nathan, who nevertheless granted the postponement.

Bury the hatchet

Rajasegaran filed the suit against the Bar, Bar Council and its then chairperson RR Chelvarajah for acting ultra vires of the Legal Profession Act 1976 by calling for the EGM to discuss allegations pertaining to the judiciary.

Rajasegaran had claimed that by calling for the EGM to discuss a proposed resolution calling for a Royal Commission 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.

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

The suit then went for hearing and Nathan fixed March 10 for decision.

However on that day, the judge asked the defendants and Rajasegaran to bury the hatchet and try to settle the matter amongst themselves.

He also requested Rajasegaran to consider withdrawing his other suit against the Bar and 11 council members to stop another EGM scheduled for June 23 last year. This suit is related to an EGM held by the Bar to discuss the misconduct of former chief justice Eusoff Chin. Rajasegaran has made no decision yet on this suit.

Counter-productive

The Bar debated Nathan's advice at its annual general meeting on March 17 where its members unanimously rejected the call by the judge.

"There was a clear message from our members that we should not settle this matter. We are also not aware of who is actually making the offer to settle," said council chairperson Mah Weng Kwai then, adding that the members wanted the judge to deliver his decision on the matter, leaving the choice with the Bar on how to proceed next on the matter.

At today's proceedings, Vijandran told the court that Rajasegaran had given serious and positive consideration to Nathan's advice and has come to the conclusion that he no longer wished to proceed with this action.

"His suit, which was highly necessary when relations between the Bench and Bar were bad, becomes academic, irrelevant and redundant when the relations are good," said Vijandran.

"In fact, the continuation of this suit may be inimical to relations between the Bench and Bar, which is far from what Rajasegaran originally intended."

He added that from Rajasegaran's point of view, the suit was no longer meaningful and may even be, in the current state of cordiality, counter-productive.

Landmark ruling

Mah, who was present at the court, later told reporters that the discontinuation of the suit would mean that a landmark Court of Appeal decision arising from two related applications from this case will stand.

He said the council wanted to look into the legal implications of this matter before deciding how to proceed with this new development.

The Court of Appeal had on July 12 last year dismissed two appeals by the defendants relating to the interim injunction and an application to strike out Rajasegaran's suit.

In their decision, the appellate court 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.

Bar ticked off

During today's hearing, Nathan also ticked off the Bar for unpleasant remarks made against him during the Bar's AGM on March 17, especially by a senior lawyer.

"It was unfair to make such allegations and to attack a judge in the confinement of the lawyers' meeting on March 17," he said.

Nathan added that a group of senior lawyers had met up with him to disassociate themselves from the attack.

"It was totally unbecoming for the Bar to attack a judge in that manner. I am perturbed that the then chairperson did not stop it. In fact, I think he encouraged it by keeping quiet," said Nathan.