Scribd
Upload
384 views4 pages

Judge Can Practice After Retirement

This document discusses the rules regarding retired judges practicing law. It references Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India rules, which places restrictions on judges practicing after retirement. Some key points discussed include: - Rule 7 is argued to be violative of Article 14 as it places an absolute restriction on judges practicing after retirement without considering the distinction between permanent and additional judges. - Supporting arguments note that restrictions aim to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the justice system. Similar restrictions have been placed on medical practitioners. - The concept of a fair and unbiased judiciary is also discussed, referencing the principle that courts should be free from bias or even the perception of bias. Fairness is an important doctrine that

Uploaded by

Mansi Jain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
384 views4 pages

Judge Can Practice After Retirement

This document discusses the rules regarding retired judges practicing law. It references Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India rules, which places restrictions on judges practicing after retirement. Some key points discussed include: - Rule 7 is argued to be violative of Article 14 as it places an absolute restriction on judges practicing after retirement without considering the distinction between permanent and additional judges. - Supporting arguments note that restrictions aim to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the justice system. Similar restrictions have been placed on medical practitioners. - The concept of a fair and unbiased judiciary is also discussed, referencing the principle that courts should be free from bias or even the perception of bias. Fairness is an important doctrine that

Uploaded by

Mansi Jain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

judge can practice after retirement

judge as a lawyer
additional judge as a lawyer
additional judge as a lawyer
Query: rule 7 of bar council of india rules, article 220
Query: rule 7 of bar council of india rules, article 220
Query: rule 7 of bar council of india rules, article 220
olympus
olympus
"JAGDISH SAGAR Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA"
arbitration clause expired by effux of time (OR)
FEMA ebk#
"JAGDISH SAGAR Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA"
Latifunneessa v. Dhan Kunwar, ILR 24 Cal 382
Latifunneessa v. Dhan Kunwar, ILR 24 Cal 382
prevention of performance by one party due to announcement in the newspaper
prevention of performance by one party due to announcement in the newspaper
rule 7 of the bar council of india is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
MAHARAJA OF BENARAS V. HAR NARAIN SINGH (OR)
P.S. Mudholkar Vs. Respondent:Bar Council of India and Ors.
"rule 7 of the bar council of india is violative of Article 220 of the Constitution of India"/20
section 293A companies act 1956
HSH Nordbank v Goodwill Hospital and Research Centre Limited
Raj Kumar Bapna & Anr vs M/S Store One Retail India Ltd  (OR)
Nirmal software services pvt ltd vs babasaheb ambedkar marathawada university ors
Nirman Sindia v. Indal Electromelts

Nirman Sindia v. Indal Electromelts


Prasar bharat v ma communication
The expression 'connection' means a link or relationship between people or things or the people
with whom one has contact (Concise Oxford Dictionary (Indian Edition). 'Connection' means act
of uniting; state of being united; a relative; relation between things one of which is bound up
with (Law Lexicon 2nd Edn. 1997).

icici bank limited

icici bank vs jyoti

Indra Bahadur Singh vs Bar Council Of U.P., Allahabad

Nelson Motis vs. Union of India crs


N.Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose Nitin Shankar Deshpande vs. The President of India and Ors. (02.07.2012 - BOMHC) : MANU/M

bar council of maharashtra v mv dabholkar


jagdish sagar vs bar council of india
r kapur v union of india

additional judges are constitutional functionaries

Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

indra bahadur singh v bar council of up

indra bahadur singh v bar council of up

"Advocates act 1961 is a special legislation" prevails over the Bar council rules

narender kumar

NitIn Shankar Deshpande Vs. the President of India and Others

rule 7 of the chapter 3 part 6 of the bar council of india being violative of article 220 of the constitution of India

narender kumar, Refined by: restriction

narender kumar

N.Kannadasan vs Ajoy Khose & Ors

ajaai kumar maheshwari (OR)

Sri Anil Amencherla vs The State Of Karnataka (OR)

ps muholkar v bar council of india (OR)


"bar council of india rules" "rule 7" "violation" "article 19"

indra bahadur singh v bar council of up

whether the restriction imposed was reasonable-


Definition of reasonable is very case specific, is neither possible nor advisable to state any
abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness as applicable uniformly to all cases.
The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions
imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of
the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict.
State of Madras v. V. G. Row. Jyoti Persh adv. Union Territory of Delhi
.
A bare reading of section 29, 30, 33, clearly shows that this is a statutory right given to an
advocate to practice and an advocate alone is the person who can practice before the courts,
tribunals, authorities and persons. But this right is subjected to the law for the time being in
force, to practice before any authority or person. Hence, right to practice is not absolute in
nature. Devata Prasad Singh Chaudhuri & Ors. v. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of
the Patna High Court [AIR 1962 SC 201]} Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen [AIR
1977 SC 36]
‌ urthermore, under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, power vested with the Bar Council of
F
India toframe the Bar Council of India Rules. Rule 7 Chapter III of these Rules deals with the
conditions for the right to practice and provide reasonable restrictions.H.S. Srinivasa
Raghavachar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(1987) 2 SCC 692]. Lingappa Pochamma Appelwar
v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(1985) 1 SCC 479].
Dynamo- Firstly, it is not an absolute restriction. It is a partial restriction to the extent that the
persons who have held the office of judge. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council, State of
Maharashtra & Goa [(1996) 3 SCC 342]
Secondly, such a restriction is intended to serve a larger public interest and to uplift the
professional values and standards of advocacy in the country. In fact, it would add further to
public confidence in the administration of justice by the Tribunal, in discharge of its
functions.Such legislative attempt, not only to adhere to but to enhance the values and dignity of
the legal profession, would add to the confidence of the common litigant in the administration of
justice and the performance of duties by the Tribunal. Lingappa Pochamma Appelwar v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. [(1985) 1 SCC 479]
 In Sukumar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal [(1993)3 SCC 723, the State of West Bengal
had prohibited private practice by medical practioners who were also teaching in the medical
institutions
head- Rule 7 inflicts an absolute restriction upon carrying on of the profession. - it doesn't take
note of the reasonable classification between permanent and additional judges.
_________
Judiciary should be free from bais
the genesis of bias has been described as the perception that the court is free from bias, that it is
objectively impartial stems from the overworked aphorism of Lord Hewart C.J. in R. v. Sussex
Justices Ex. P. McCarthy [(1924) 1 KB 256 KBD at 259] 
See Sir Louis Blom, Q.C., 'Bias, Malfunction in Judicial Decision- making', (2009) Public Law
199]have referred to the concept of 'automatic disqualification', that is, where the element of bias
is present and would lead to disqualification on its own. 
.
Fairness-
 The doctrine of fairness has also been applied by this Court in the case of Vijay v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.[(2006) 6 SCC 289].

You might also like