The Bar is too high but never above the law: A response to Ashish Khetan

Ashish Khetan's recent critique of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for accepting a Rs 50 crore donation from industrialists raises legitimate concerns about the integrity and independence of legal institutions. However, his argument, though well-intentioned, is based on a misunderstanding of the structure, functioning, and ethos of the Bar Association, and ultimately conflates institutional assistance with institutional compromise.
To begin with, it is essential to distinguish between the SCBA and the Supreme Court itself. The SCBA is not a judicial body. It is a professional association comprising advocates who practice before the Supreme Court. Its functions include promoting legal education, providing welfare benefits to its members, and upholding professional standards. It is neither a regulatory body like the Bar Council nor a judicial body like the Supreme Court. Consequently, the decisions it takes to support its members, such as facilitating insurance through donations, do not impact the independence or impartiality of the judiciary.
Khetan's central concern is that by accepting donations from wealthy industrialists—'crumbs off the plate of the filthy rich'—the Bar Association may lose its moral footing or be beholden to such donors. This assumption oversimplifies the realities of funding in professional associations and civil society more broadly. Donations are a common and necessary practice to enable institutions—be they bar associations, universities, hospitals, or NGOs—to meet their objectives. Philanthropy, including corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, is an accepted and encouraged practice under Indian law. Indeed, many industrial contributions to social causes are not only legally sanctioned but statutorily mandated.
To equate such support with loss of independence is both speculative and unfair. SCBA office bearers, including Kapil Sibal, have been transparent about the nature of the donations. Sibal's candid acknowledgment that the donors are his personal friends, whom he has represented in court, does not suggest impropriety—it is merely an honest recognition of professional networks. Legal professionals often represent clients across a spectrum, including the government, corporations, NGOs, and individuals. The relationships formed therein do not, and should not, cast a shadow on their integrity or ability to act independently.
Moreover, the independence of the Bar is not a function of its sources of funding. It is a function of the conduct, character, and courage of its members. The SCBA comprises advocates from diverse backgrounds and persuasions, who have time and again demonstrated their willingness to critique governments, stand against executive overreach, and speak out against judicial failings. The presence of a donation does not dilute this spirit. If anything, it enables the Association to better serve its members—especially younger lawyers who benefit from health insurance and welfare measures funded through such generosity.
It is important to stress that the SCBA is not a homogeneous or hierarchical body. It cannot be held collectively accountable for the personal ideologies of its individual members, just as a university cannot be judged solely on the views of its alumni. The SCBA has, in the past, vocally defended the independence of the judiciary, condemned assaults on legal norms, and mobilized collective opinion on matters of national importance. Its institutional memory and commitment to democratic values remain intact.
Khetan's article also suggests that donations from business houses create a perception of quid pro quo. But perceptions must be grounded in fact. If there is evidence of favouritism or compromise, it must be brought to light and acted upon. Until then, insinuations serve only to tarnish without substantiating. In a legal system where integrity is paramount, such allegations require caution, especially when aimed at a collective. The Courts and judges are well trained to ensure that these externalities do not affect their decision.
There is also a glaring contradiction in Khetan's stance: would the same critique apply if the donation had come from the government, which remains the largest litigant in the country? Would accepting government grants then imply that the Bar is compromised in its independence from state control? The logic of his critique, if consistently applied, would prohibit all forms of external funding—an unsustainable proposition.
As a constitutional lawyer and member of the SCBA, I can say with conviction for myself and almost for the whole bar that we are not beholden to any donor or industrialist, whether or not they have contributed to the SCBA. Our professional obligations, ethical commitments, and pledge to uphold the Constitution are not so fragile as to be swayed by financial patronage of this kind.
The judiciary's challenges today lie elsewhere. They lie in the chronic shortage of judges, the staggering backlog of cases, and the lack of administrative reform. The disillusionment of the common litigant stems from the unaccountability of the executive, the inertia of the police machinery, and the government's delays in implementing court orders. To attribute these systemic issues to a donation received by a professional association is to misdirect public ire and distract from the real problems.
Khetan's article, at best, serves as a cautionary note—a reminder that institutions must remain vigilant. On that, we agree. Transparency in accepting and disclosing donations is imperative. Bar associations must remain accountable to their members and to the public. But to suggest that they have already failed this test without evidence is premature and unfair. The Supreme Court Bar Association and its members have a serious culture of pro bono matters. I can name at least half a dozen senior advocates whom I have instructed to appear in cases concerning bails, bulldozer action, students' expulsion, custodial violence, demolition and riots. This includes even the most senior lawyer like Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Raju Ramachandran, Chander Uday Singh, Huzefa Ahmadi, Sanjay Hegde and Dr Guruswamy.
There is disparity in remuneration amongst legal professionals. This is also because of the unwillingness of the client to remunerate the junior members. The problem of distribution of wealth in India is a problem that is not confined to the legal professional alone. There are systemic changes that must be brought about - and the process of designation of 'senior advocates' being one of them. However, to conflate these with donations is pushing the limits of logic.
The examples of conflict of interest, as mentioned by Khetan are simplistic and do not capture the nuances of professional ethics. A lawyer is engaged by a client, and just as a client may choose to not engage the same advocate for his next matter, a lawyer may also (subject to cab-rank rules) choose to decline the brief. The bar against appearing against a previous client is only when the appearance is marred by legal professional privilege or a relationship with the client. Khetan has mentioned too many subjects in one piece, like in quick-stand, fully reasoned none.
Finally, the role of bar associations in a democracy must be appreciated in its full complexity. These bodies nurture the legal fraternity, facilitate professional development, and serve as intermediaries between the bar and the bench. Their vibrancy and financial stability are essential for the health of the legal system. In supporting such institutions through lawful, transparent donations, benefactors are not undermining democracy—they are strengthening one of its pillars. The Bar is never above the law.
(The author is Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India and Member of the Supreme Court Bar Association)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

18 minutes ago

• Business Standard

After evacuation from Iran, Indians express relief; 827 brought back so far

The Indian government's Operation Sindhu has successfully evacuated 827 Indian nationals from conflict-hit Iran, with the latest flight landing in New Delhi on Saturday. The evacuees, including students and pilgrims, shared their experiences of the tense situation in Iran and praised the efforts of the Indian embassy and government. The evacuation flight from Mashhad, carried 310 Indian nationals, who were safely brought back to the country under Operation Sindhu. Sharing the images of the evacuation, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal wrote on X, "Another evacuation flight from Mashhad landed in New Delhi at 1630 hrs on 21 June with 310 Indian nationals from Iran. With this, a total of 827 Indians have been evacuated." Nadeem Asgar, an evacuee, told ANI, "I am thankful to my nation for keeping us safe there and bringing us back safely. As soon as the situation went south, we were evacuated by the embassy. I am very thankful to the Indian government." Farzana Abdi echoed similar sentiments, "We are coming back from Iran. There was a lot of fighting and missiles there. The Indian embassy helped us a lot and brought us here. We are very happy to be back in India. India is the best." Riyazul Hasan described the dire situation in Iran, "The situation is not good there. We saw from our hotel window that the missiles were coming, which were being intercepted mid-air. We are relieved to be back here. We came through the embassy. We thank PM Modi." Fatima expressed her gratitude to the Prime Minister, "I am very grateful to PM Modi. Now I feel at peace after coming back to my country. Being back in your homeland is a matter of great joy." Almas Rizvi praised the Indian embassy's support, "We were given accommodation in a good hotel and given lunch, dinner, everything, on time. It feels good to be back in our country. The Indian embassy helped us a lot. The Indian government took good care of us and didn't even let us feel we were living in a war-like situation." Daniya shared her relief, "I am delighted. We were terrified. The situation was very dire in Tehran. I thank the Indian embassy and Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the bottom of my heart because of which we could reach here safely." Earlier in the day, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi said, a centrifuge manufacturing workshop in the central Iranian city has been struck, making it the third nuclear-related facility targeted in Israeli attacks since June 13, Al Jazeera reported. "We know this facility well. There was no nuclear material at this site and therefore the attack on it will have no radiological consequences," Grossi said in a statement posted by the IAEA. On Friday, Grossi said the nuclear watchdog does not have information showing Iran is actively trying to build nuclear weapons. The Israeli military has already said that it's got many targets that it still has to hit, and the campaign has clearly broadened beyond the military, beyond top scientific advisers, and beyond missile launchers. So there's nothing really stopping Israel from carrying on until it's achieved its stated objectives. Well, that is, to stop Iran enriching uranium to produce a nuclear weapon, as per Al Jazeera. The Israeli military has warned Israelis that they should be prepared for a long campaign. According to Al Jazeera, from Iran, overnight we had about 40 drones fired, according to the Israeli military, one of those getting through the air defences. In all, there have been about 450 missiles fired since the start of this fighting. According to the Israelis, 450 ballistic missiles and 400-plus drones.

Time of India

32 minutes ago

• Time of India

BJP has hijacked JDU, Nitish Kumar won't be chief minister after elections: Tejashwi Yadav

"...Everyone in Bihar knows that Nitish Kumar will not be the chief minister after the elections. Amit Shah has clarified this multiple times... The BJP has hijacked the JDU. Sanjay Jha is an RSS person. He is in JDU from Arun Jaitley quota. JDU ticket distribution will also be done by Amit Shah, not Nitish Kumar..." the RJD leader told ANI. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Patna (Bihar) [India], June 21 (ANI): Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Tejashwi Yadav on Saturday alleged the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has taken control of the Janata Dal (United), claiming that Chief Minister Nitish Kumar will not retain his post after the upcoming Bihar Assembly reiterated his claims that the BJP will have a decisive say in distribution of assembly tickets by the regional party."...Everyone in Bihar knows that Nitish Kumar will not be the chief minister after the elections. Amit Shah has clarified this multiple times... The BJP has hijacked the JDU. Sanjay Jha is an RSS person. He is in JDU from Arun Jaitley quota. JDU ticket distribution will also be done by Amit Shah, not Nitish Kumar..." the RJD leader told today, Tejashwi Yadav launched a scathing attack on the Janata Dal (United) in poll-bound Bihar, alleging that BJP will have a decisive say in distribution of assembly tickets by the regional a press conference, Yadav also attacked the coalition government over its governance record, asking if it had set up IT parks, SEZ (Special Economic Zone), industrial clusters, semiconductor factories, food processing units or educational hubs in the state. JD(U) and BJP are the leading parties in the ruling coalition in parties in Bihar have talked about "health condition" of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and Tejashwi Yadav also took potshots during his presser."Nitish Kumar's unconscious state is a blessing for them. The JDU tickets will also be distributed by Amit Shah... This is confirmed. Sanjay Jha is a BJP-RSS person. He is in JD(U) from the Arun Jaitley quota," Yadav RJD leader accused the Nitish Kumar government of lacking a vision."We will force the government to speak on IT parks, SEZ (Special Economic Zone), industrial clusters, industrial parks, semiconductor factories, food processing units, textile hubs, educational hubs and health cities. This is our vision: all-around development. The government will be forced to pay attention to these topics," he said."Nitish Kumar was there for 20 years, and PM Modi has been there for the last 11 years. Why were the things mentioned above not established? But when Tejashwi comes, he will complete all these works," he Nitish Kumar on Saturday announced that widowed women, senior citizens, and differently abled people covered under Bihar government's Social Security Pension Schemes will now be receiving Rs 1,100 pension per month."I am happy to inform you that under the Social Security Pension Scheme, widowed women, elderly and disabled people will now get a pension of Rs. 1,100 instead of Rs. 400 every month," Nitish Kumar posted on X."All beneficiaries will get a pension at the increased rate from July. It will be ensured that this amount is sent to the account of all beneficiaries on the 10th of the month. This will help one crore nine lakh sixty nine thousand and two hundred and fifty five beneficiaries a lot. The elderly are a precious part of society, and ensuring their dignified living is our top priority. The state government will continue to make efforts in this direction," the post will face assembly polls later this year.

Time of India

33 minutes ago

• Time of India

India assures Sri Lanka of evacuating its nationals from Iran

Live Events India on Saturday assured Sri Lanka that it will evacuate its nationals currently stranded in Iran amid the Islamic nation's conflict with Lanka extended gratitude to India adding that this "act of solidarity exemplifies the strong and enduring partnership between India and Sri Lanka.""Sri Lanka extends its sincere gratitude to the Government of India for the timely assistance to evacuate Sri Lankan nationals from Iran alongside Indian citizens," Foreign Ministry of Sri Lanka posted on X on the Indian mission in Iran had said that it would help in evacuating nationals of Nepal and Sri Lanka following requests from their respective governments."On request of the Governments of Nepal and Sri Lanka, the Indian Embassy's evacuation efforts in Iran will also cover Citizens of Nepal and Sri Lanka," the Indian Embassy Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry advised its citizens in Iran to contact the Indian Embassy in Tehran if they wish to leave the country."The government of Sri Lanka has made arrangements with the government of India to assist Sri Lankans who wish to leave Iran by accommodating them in the flights," the ministry said in an official to the Foreign Ministry, there are less than 100 Sri Lankan nationals in Iran , while some 20,000 are employed in Israel.