As they say, the law is a jealous mistress. It requires all your dedication, and it doesn’t like sharing you with a hard-working, time-consuming Chief Minister. The change of Mamata Banerjee’s signature white shawl to the stiff collar and black gown of an advocate last week was a stroke of political genius. It was an indication that the “street fighter” had returned, and was ready to come down from the throne of power to the depths of the bar library and fight for her people. However, in the cold, lifeless eyes of the Bar Council of India (BCI) a dramatic comeback is not quite as meaningful as a valid enrollment certificate
It certainly is not a simple “please explain” from the BCI that it is seeking to have formal reports from the Bar Council of West Bengal about Banerjee’s enrollment status. It’s an inescapable dissent of her right to be behind that mahogany lectern. For the non-partisan observer, it seems like an awkward quirk, a “gotcha” moment that has nothing to do with the leader’s actual health or the outcome of a recent election. For the legal profession, however, the rules must be adhered to. The legal profession is not for dipping into, it’s a full-time job.
The heart of the matter is Advocates Act of 1961. According to these regulations, lawyers who go to work for a salary or a constitutional office (such as, say, running a state for 15 years) must self-revoke their practicing license. This is a logical conclusion: you can’t serve the executive and the judicial branches at the same time. It’s a conflict of interest; a blurring of the lines between separation of powers. Much now hangs with the Calcutta High Court whether Banerjee ever suspended her license at any point back in the eighties or nineties, and more significantly whether she did so in a proper manner before the unexpected appearance in Court Room No. 1
A traditional “procedural trap. Her license was not renewed, or was actually cancelled years ago for failure to pay dues or for too many years holding political office, the repercussions of a report like that are far from a ticket, they are more likely to be a fine. All her arguments, all her petitions, as an “advocate”, are legally null.
The timing is of course a factor not to be overlooked. The BCI, which is chaired by Manan Kumar Mishra, has come in for criticism from critics that it has a little too much of New Delhi’s breath. For Trinamool followers, it’s not just a professional ethics study but a targeted attack. They believe that it is the centre which is using all its institutional means to make sure that Mamata Banerjee is treated with no mercy, even in her loss. They say she appeared out of a sense of duty for those who suffer violence and as a moral obligation, a duty that shouldn’t be obscured by a few missing forms
However, the law is not concerned with moral necessity unless the documents are in disorder.
This is somewhat ironic, and that’s very hard to miss. All along the way, the opposition has accused Banerjee of trampling on the grain of institutionalism and using the police and administration as instruments of her party office. The tables are now turned with a vengeance. She’s in the clutches of a regulatory body that refuses to show any interest in her “spirit” and sees her being held to the strictest, most literal interpretation of the law
It would be a footnote if it was a junior lawyer who failed to pay his welfare fund fees. However, it is Mamata and hence, a crisis. The Bar Council of West Bengal is in a precarious situation as it is now dominated by those who are pro-TMC centric. They need to create a report which is factually watertight for fear of being ripped apart by the BCI in Delhi.
It’s not a matter of whether a politician can be a lawyer for a day. It’s about the professional nature of the Bar. Rather, if the BCI lets this one slip, it unleashes an avalanche of every grievance-filled politician with a law degree to launch a political attack via the courts without any ethical limits.
The outlook is bleak as the report is being prepared. The man who once ruled the whole state apparatus has been called on to demonstrate her right to even appear in court. It’s a reminder that things change in politics, and that what is patient and pedantic in the bureaucracy of the law is sometimes quite cold. Whether her enrollment is found to be valid or not, the message has been sent: the robe isn’t a costume you can put on just because you’ve lost your crown.
