Re Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 29 June 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGHC 138
• Plaintiff Counsel: Applicants in-person
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 443 of 2012
• Date: 29 June 2012
• Hearing Date: 25 May 2012,31 May 2012
• Subject Matter: Administrative Law,Judicial Review
• Year: 2012
• Citation: [2012] SGHC 138
• Defendant Counsel: Low Siew Ling and Asanthi Mendis (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 11 April 2013

Choo Han Teck J:

This was an application by Mr Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and Mr Sree Govind Menon (“the applicants”) under O 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“RSC”) for leave to be granted to apply for “a Quashing Order” against an order made by the Chief Justice dated 16 February 2012 (“the Chief Justice’s order”). The applicants are advocates and solicitors and on 13 February 2012 they were notified by a letter from the Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat that a Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) had been appointed under s 90(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) to hear and investigate a complaint against them. The members of the DT were Mr Thean Lip Ping (“Mr Thean”) and Mr Tan Chua Thye. Mr Thean was appointed the President for this DT.

The applicants wrote to the Chief Justice on the same day stating that they “cannot accept the appointment of Mr Thean Lip Ping as a member and even less as the President of the DT. We do not get along with Mr Thean Lip Ping at all”. Their letter also stated that “Mr Thean is known to be close to the spouse of Mrs V.K. Rajah and have a close relationship. Mr Thean was until recently in KhattarWong LLP and only left recently. This is where counsel appointed by the Law Society, Mr P.E. Asokan is from.”

The DT Secretariat wrote by letter dated 16 February 2012 stating that “pursuant to s 90 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161), the Chief Justice has revoked the appointment of Mr Thean Lip Ping as President of the DT, and appointed in his place Mr G P Selvam”. The DT Secretariat’s letter also stated that the Chief Justice’s decision was made “without accepting the veracity of the [applicants’] letter [of 13 February 2012]”. The applicants wrote two letters, one dated 24 February 2012 and the other 27 February 2012 to the Chief Justice objecting to the appointment of Mr G P Selvam as President of the DT in place of Mr Thean. It was again stated that “Mr G.P. Selvam is known to be close to the spouse of Mrs V.K. Rajah and have a close relationship”. This letter of 27 February 2012 further stated that there “is no lack of available Senior Counsel able to discharge the function of President in an impartial and objective manner, having no connections to the spouse of Mrs V.K. Rajah or to Rajah & Tann”. The DT Secretariat replied by letter dated 29 February 2012 to say that the applicants’ request to have Mr G P Selvam be replaced as President of the DT was rejected. Upon receipt, the applicants replied immediately reiterating their objection to the appointment of Mr G P Selvam as president of the DT. This time, the applicants expressed very strong views regarding the Chief Justice himself. First they stated that they were “shocked by the decision made”. They then stated that “[i]t is known to us and anyone who keeps an impartial mind that the Honourable Chief Justice is close to the Judge of Appeal. It would not be unreasonable to say that the spouses would have met and certainly the Honourable Chief Justice would have met the spouse, Mrs V.K. Rajah.” Finally, the applicants reiterated their view that the DT compositions should exclude Mr G P Selvam and that the Chief Justice should appoint any one of the 13 Senior Counsels in the list that accompanied their letter. They stated that if their request was not granted “this letter placed (sic) on record early in time, conveys that we do not expect a fair hearing with Mr G.P. Selvam as President”.

The DT Secretariat wrote on 2 March 2012 to say that the Chief Justice had directed that the appointment of Mr G P Selvam and Mr Tan Chuan Thye shall stand. Thereafter it proceeded to convene a pre-hearing conference. Consequently, the applicants made this application before me for leave to apply for judicial review under O 53 of the RSC. I have set out all the relevant assertions of fact upon which the applicants made this application and it will be clear that up to this point, the allegation was that Mrs V K Rajah had something to do with the applicants having to appear before the DT; that the President of the DT was appointed by the Chief Justice who knows Justice V K Rajah; and Mr G P Selvam was a former High Court Judge who would have known Justice V K Rajah and would not give the applicants an impartial hearing. The story so far, in my view, was built through a series of conjectures. All the papers and submissions filed by the applicants up to the commencement of the proceedings before me did not say what it was that Mrs V K Rajah’s involvement was.

This application was heard on 25 May 2012 with Miss Low Siew Ling (“Ms Low”) and Miss Asanthi Mendis appearing on behalf of the Attorney-General as was required in an application under O 54 of the RSC. The applicants appeared in person. It was only in the course of their submissions before me that the connection of Mrs V K Rajah to the applicants’ disciplinary matter was made known. The first applicant stated the story as follows. The applicants were lawyers for one Miss Bernadette Rankine (“Ms Rankine”) and her employee, one Miss Lim Poh Yen (“Ms Lim”). Their clients were being sued by one Amin Shah. The first applicant stated that they had represented these clients for a year and they were satisfied with the professional services rendered. Then Miss Rankine spoke to Mrs V K Rajah and after that Miss Rankine told the applicants that she would like the applicants to work...