Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nitin Shankar Deshpande, filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Bombay High Court seeking to restrain Respondents 5 to 9, who were former Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court, from pleading or acting before any court or authority in India except the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The respondents were enrolled as advocates on the rolls of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and had each been appointed as Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court but resigned during their term before being confirmed as permanent Judges. The most recent resignation was on 8 May 2012, and the earliest was fourteen years prior. The central legal issue was whether Article 220 of the Constitution, which prohibits a person who has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court from practicing in any court except the Supreme Court and other High Courts, applies to Additional Judges who resigned before confirmation. The petitioner argued for a purposive interpretation to include Additional Judges, contending that the object of Article 220 would be defeated otherwise and that Additional Judges are equivalent to permanent Judges in functions and powers. The court, however, held that Article 220 by its plain language applies only to 'permanent Judges' and that Additional Judges who resign before confirmation do not fall within that category. The court declined to expand the scope of Article 220 through purposive interpretation, as the constitutional text is clear. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the respondents were allowed to continue practicing in all courts except the Supreme Court and other High Courts, subject to the bar under Article 220 only if they had been permanent Judges.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 220 - Restriction on Practice - Applicability to Additional Judges - The petitioner sought to restrain former Additional Judges who resigned before confirmation from practicing in courts other than the Supreme Court and other High Courts, arguing that Article 220 should be purposively interpreted to include Additional Judges. The court held that Article 220, by its plain language, applies only to persons who have held office as a 'permanent Judge' of a High Court. Additional Judges who resign before confirmation do not fall within this category, and a purposive interpretation cannot override the clear text of the Constitution. (Paras 1-3) B) Constitutional Law - Article 220 - Object and Purpose - The object of Article 220 is to prevent permanent Judges from using their judicial office for personal gain after retirement. However, Additional Judges who resign before confirmation have not held the office of a permanent Judge, and thus the restriction does not apply to them. The court declined to expand the scope of Article 220 through interpretation. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Article 220 of the Constitution, which prohibits a person who has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority except the Supreme Court and other High Courts, applies to Additional Judges who resigned before being confirmed as permanent Judges.
Final Decision
The petition was dismissed. The court held that Article 220 of the Constitution applies only to permanent Judges, and Additional Judges who resigned before confirmation are not within its purview. Therefore, the respondents are not prohibited from practicing in any court except as provided by Article 220 for permanent Judges.
Law Points
- Article 220 of the Constitution applies only to permanent Judges
- not Additional Judges who resigned before confirmation
- purposive interpretation cannot expand the plain meaning of constitutional provisions
