No bar on practice for former additional judges, rules HC

The Court dismissed a PIL which sought to restrain its five former judges from practising in the same court after resigning as additional judges.

"The bar on practice for permanent judges is not applicable to additional judges, observed Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice R D Dhanuka while dismissing the PIL.

"We do not feel that there is reason for the High Court to invoke its powers under the Constitution to interfere in this matter," the judges said.

"Both permanent judges and additional judges perform the same duties and functions. However, there is a cardinal distinction between the two in the Constitution as regards their tenure. While the tenure of additional judges is two years, a permanent judge retires at the age of 62," the bench said.

The PIL had argued that five additional judges of the Bombay High Court, who had resigned from their post after 12 to 15 months of their appointment, should not be allowed to practice as they were barred by article 220 of the Constitution.

The five additional judges named in the PIL are Y S Jahagirdar, A Y Sakhare, Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, S U Kamdar and Girish Godbole who were elevated to the post from the bar.

Article 220 of the Constitution says, "No person who after the commencement of this Constitution, has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court and the other High Courts."

The PIL, filed by activist Nitin Deshpande, argued that an additional judge discharges functions of the same character as spirit as a permanent judge of the High Court. (More)