Petition against former judges practising in HC

Deshpande argued their action of returning to the Bar of the same court is against Article 220 of the Constitution of India,which states that “No person who,after commencement of this Constitution,has held office as a permanent judge of High Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority except the Supreme Court and the other High Courts”.

Deshpande has contended in his PIL that “an additional judge discharges functions of the same character and spirit as a permanent judge of the High Court. The Petitioner further submits that there is no difference of whatever nature between the two,in respect of their status and the other incidents of office,except that an additional judge can hold office only for the period specified in the warrant of his appointment.” He has therefore stated that its an erroneous premise that Article 220 would not be attracted in the case of additional judges,the PIL states.

Deshpande has further contended that after resigning as judges,the members of the bench return to the bar with an “exceptional aura” that gives them special benefits.

According to the PIL,litigants rush to them as they have the advantage of being former judges. “The concern,however,is brutal damage to the most significant pillar of the Constitution of India,” the PIL states. It mentions that even after they return to the bar,the former judges continue to be “treated and respected” like judges. This,according to the PIL,makes a mockery of their constitutional appointment as judges.

Reacting to the PIL,one of the four judges made respondents in the PIL said,“The Constitution of India does not prohibit former additional judges of the High Court from joining the Bar.”

The PIL is likely to be heard by the court next week.