AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 72

Explaining the point of view adopted in the Bill, Shri Datar said1:

"We do not desire that our retired High Court Judges should go and practise before a District or Session Judge or even a first-class Magistrate. It is quite likely that in some cases a tendency may be there to do it. But we have confined their practice only to the other High Courts and the Supreme Court. Therefore, I would submit that so far as the question of practice is concerned, some concessions had to be made and we have made this concession.

If after 60 years, a man desires to practise, then he should not work in the sphere of influence in which he had officiated as a High Court Judge and must have officiated as a District Judge and must also have practised. Therefore, he is taken to other and safer limits and he is allowed, if he can take advantage of it, the right to practice in other High Courts, and if he thinks it proper or available, even in the Supreme Court. This is for the purpose of appreciating the best amongst the advocates."

The relevant clause of the Bill was ultimately passed as reported by the Joint Committee2.

1. Parliamentary Proceedings on the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Bill, 1956, Vol. 1, p. 353.

2. Parliamentary Proceedings on the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Bill, 1956, Vol. 1, p. 358.



Restriction on Practise after being a Permanent Judge Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys