PIL filed against former additional judges practicing in Bombay High Court Bombay HC to hear the matter next week

In a move which may change the very manner in which the judges are appointed to the High Courts, a petition impleading five former additional judges of the Bombay High Court has been filed before the very same High Court. The petition states that these former additional judges, who resigned before they were made Permanent Judges, should not be allowed to practice in the Bombay High Court. The petition has also impleaded the President of India, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court..The petition essentially rests on the interpretation of Article 220 of the Constitution of India, which states that those who had held office “as a permanent judge” can only plead before the Supreme Court or a High Court other than the one they were judges in. One of the questions to be decided by the Bombay High Court is whether the term “as a permanent judge” in Article 220 applies to those appointed as Additional judges as well..The petition has been filed by social activist Nitin Deshpande, who has filed numerous other petitions involving civic issues and issues relating to environment. He told Bar & Bench that he will always have the greatest respect for judges but there appears to be something inherently wrong in allowing former judges to appear as advocates in the same court they were once judges in. Deshpande also said that these ex-judges are free to practice in any other High Court or the Supreme Court or could restrict their practice to providing legal opinions etc..The petition states that the advocates impleaded in the petition namely, YS Jahagirdar, Anil Sakhare, SU Kamdar, AA Kumbhakoni and GS Godbole were all appointed as additional judges but resigned before they were confirmed as permanent judges. All the resignations took place within 15 months of the appointment (Article 217 states that the Additional Judges enjoy a maximum tenure of 2 years). After their resignations, they started practicing as advocates in the Bombay High Court, an act which the petition states “is against the mandate of Article 220 of the Constitution of India.”..Speaking to Bar & Bench, Ashish Mehta, said that setting aside the ethical aspect of the matter, if the Supreme Court (in SP Gupta’s case) did not differentiate between Additional and Permanent Judges then there is no reason why the current differentiation should exist..When asked whether he was hesitant to raise such a potentially sensitive issue, Mehta was candid enough to admit that he did face some self-doubts before filing the petition. In fact, he had worked in the chambers of one of the ex-judges impleaded in this very petition! Nonetheless, Mehta believes that this petition raises several pertinent and important issues, issues which have a wide-ranging impact on both the Bar and the Bench..Mehta also mentioned that they have asked for the matter to be heard by a specially constituted Bench consisting of two senior judges as opposed to one senior and one junior judge. The matter is expected to be taken up next week..Sources in the Bar say that this petition has garnered a lot of support from practicing lawyers in the city and the issues raised therein concern lawyers, judges and litigants as well. Now what remains to be seen is how the High Court chooses to deal with this peculiar situation.