Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
»
2-min read

After Bar Council Snub, Plea to Ban MPs From Practising Law Reaches SC

The basic contention of the applicant has been that this dual role of a legislator and a lawyer violates Rule 49 of the BCI.

Debayan Roy | News18.com

Updated:February 7, 2018, 12:19 PM IST
facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp
After Bar Council Snub, Plea to Ban MPs From Practising Law Reaches SC
File photo of the Supreme Court building.
Loading...

New Delhi: Just days after a sub-committee formed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) rejected an application to ban lawmakers from being lawyers, the applicant has now moved the Supreme Court with a plea highlighting the conflict of interest in MPs and MLAs practising law.

Applicant Ashwini Upadhyay, who had earlier moved several applications before the BCI, has now approached the apex court, citing Rule 49 of the BCI and Article 14 (Equality) of the Constitution.

In his plea, Upadhyay has claimed that when lawyers taking fee from clients and salary from the public exchequer amounts to professional misconduct.

“The legal profession is a noble and demanding one and the apex court has repeatedly frowned upon its practitioners attempting to ride two horses or more at a time,” said the applicant, who has also given examples of how the court “frowned upon” a doctor wanting to practise as an advocate.

The basic contention of the applicant also has been that this dual role of a legislator and a lawyer violates Rule 49 of the BCI. According to Rule 49: “An advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practise and shall, on taking any such employment, intimate the fact to the BCI and shall cease to practise as an advocate, so long he is in such employment.”

However, when the sub-committee, in majority decision, decided that legislators can indeed practise as lawyers, they had stated that, “We should not forget the fact that lawyers like Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Dr. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Rajinder Prasad, Lala Lajpat Rai, Rajgopalachari, CS Dass have played important and crucial role in our freedom struggle while they were practising advocates. There is no valid reason as to why services of an advocate, who happens to become an MP/MLA, should not be available to general litigant public who are aggrieved by any act/deed of the government.”

In the plea before SC, Upadhyay has also mentioned that there is a clear conflict of interest as MPs and MLAs have powers to "impeach judges".

"The MPs who have the power of impeachment and can impeach a judge of the Supreme Court where they appear day in and day out; it could be possible that the judges concerned may not be able to discharge their duty without fear. Judges are mostly men of great wisdom and are fearless. However, the public may sometime perceive that judges give favourable orders to few lawyers... As it is said that Caesar's wife should be above suspicion!" read the additional statement filed by Upadhyay.

Read full article
Loading...
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp

Live TV

Loading...
Countdown To Elections Results
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results