A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud had on July 9 reserved the order on a PIL by a BJP leader.
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce today its verdict on a plea seeking to ban lawmakers from practising as advocates in courts across the country. The apex court was hearing the petition which said that while a public servant cannot practice as an advocate, legislators are practising in various courts which was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud had on July 9 reserved the order on a PIL by a BJP leader.
CJI Misra is expected to deliver nine path-breaking decisions before October 1, his last working day in office. These include Aadhaar, Ayodhya title dispute case, SC/ST quota in promotions, making adultery gender-neutral, allowing all women to access Kerala's Sabarimala shrine, disqualification of legislators facing heinous charges, and live-streaming Supreme Court proceedings.
PIL
BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay had filed a plea seeking to bar lawyer-lawmakers (MPs, MLAs, MLCs) from practising in courts during their tenure in legislature.
The plea said the issue is a matter of concern to both the judiciary and the legislature as most of the lawmaker-advocates are involved in active practice of law, despite receiving salaries and other perquisites drawn on the public exchequer.
Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for Upadhyay, had told the court that a lawmaker draws a salary from the public exchequer and a salaried employee is debarred by the Bar Council of India from practising in the courts of law.
The petition also pointed out that the MPs have the power of voting on the impeachment of judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts.
Centre's submission
The bench had taken note of the Centre's submission that an MP or an MLA is an elected representative and not a full-time employee of the government and hence the plea was not maintainable.
To this, the bench had replied that employment postulates a master-servant relationship and the government of India is not the master of a Member of Parliament.
Bar Council of India
The apex court also sought the response of the Bar Council of India on the issue.
In its reply, the BCI had said that it cannot stop legislators from practising as lawyers but it can ban lawyer-legislators from taking part in an impeachment motion against a judge.
The Council had said legislators who move an impeachment motion against any judge of the higher judiciary would not be allowed to appear before that court.
(With PTI inputs)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "File photo of Supreme Court, PTI")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}