The Bar Council suffered its second setback in two weeks when the Federal Court today dismissed its application for leave to challenge a decision which prevents it from discussing issues involving the judiciary.

It had barely recovered from last week's decision by the court to reject its application for leave to appeal against a decision which declared its 59th annual general meeting invalid over lack of quorum.

Coincidently it was the same panel of judges - Justices Pajan Singh Gill, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff and Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman - who delivered both decisions.

Today's decision will mean that the Bar may not be as free as in the past to discuss matters pertaining to the judiciary as this will be deemed "contemptuous" and "unconstitutional".

Pajan who delivered the oral decision said the application was dismissed as "there was no novel points where further arguments would be an advantage".

He stated that the legal principles on the issue stated at the Court of Appeal and the High Court had been settled.

The court also ordered the Bar to pay costs to respondent lawyer K Raja Segaran who had objected to the leave application.

He had filed a suit on Nov 9, 1999 against the Bar Council and its 11 office-bearers at the Kuala Lumpur High Court seeking declarations that the EGM on Nov 20, 199 was "unlawful, contemptuous and seditious".

Raja Segaran further obtained an injunction to stop the Bar from holding the meeting, as well as a permanent injunction which restrained the Bar and its members from holding similar meetings with the same or similar purposes.

Net effect

The Bar had then challenged the decisions at the Court of Appeal but failed. The court held, among other points, that the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar must act and conduct their affairs within the framework of the Legal Profession Act 1978 (LPA).

It held that convening the proposed EGM and the proposed general meeting to discuss allegations of impropriety against then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin was not within the ambit of the LPA.

The court also rejected that Bar's explanation that the proposed EGM would uphold the cause of justice or to protect the public in matters touching or incidental to the law.

It was of the view that the net effect would be to "censure the judiciary" while permitting discussion of the conduct of judges in flagrant disregard of Articles 125 and 127 of the constitution.

Allowing an open discussion on conduct of the judges could amount to questioning the wisdom of the king in his selection of judges, the court said.

It also noted that the judiciary thrives on public confidence in the system and that open criticism of the judiciary could bring about misunderstanding that could lead to "unwarranted misgivings".