The bench passed the ruling while dismissing the appeal of NK Bajpai, a former Member of CESTAT.
Legislature has a right to impose restriction on any trade or profession to ensure fair play and justice and it cannot be termed as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has ruled.
A bench of Justice AK Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar, in a judgment, said such restrictions are intended for a larger public purpose, ensure people's confidence in the administration of justice and enhance professional values.
It is "as difficult as it is to anticipate the right to any freedom or liberty without any reasonable restriction, equally difficult is it to imagine the existence of a right not coupled with a duty.
"The duty may be a direct or indirect consequence of a fair assertion of the right. The legislature is entitled to make a law relating to the professional or technical qualifications necessary for carrying on that profession," the apex court said.
The bench passed the ruling while dismissing the appeal of NK Bajpai, a former Member of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), challenging Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, which stipulated that no former member shall be entitled to practice before the tribunal.
The apex court said it was unable to hold that restrictions imposed under Section 129(6) of the Act are unreasonable or ultra vires.
"Such a restriction is intended to serve a larger public interest and to uplift the professional values and standards of advocacy in the country.
"In fact, it would add further to public confidence in the administration of justice by the Tribunal, in discharge of its functions.
"Thus, it cannot be held that the restriction has been introduced without any purpose or object," the bench said.
SC-RESTRICTIONS 2 LAST
ZCZC
PRI GEN LGL NAT
.NEWDEL DEL115
SC-RESTRICTIONS 2 LAST
The bench said in modern times, there are several courts and tribunals in the country and as such the restriction would hardly jeopardise the interests of any hardworking and upright advocate.
"The right of such advocate to practice in the high courts, district courts and other tribunals established by the state or the central government other than the CESTAT remains unaffected.
"In fact, one finds a clear nexus between the mischief sought to be avoided and the object aimed to be achieved," the bench said.
According to the court, the principle of private interest giving way to public interest is a settled canon, not only of administrative jurisprudence, but of statutory interpretation as well.
"Having regard to the prevalent values and conditions of the profession, most of the legal practitioners would not stoop to unhealthy practices or tactics but the legislature, in its wisdom, has considered it desirable to -- eliminate any possibility of conflict between the interest and duty and aimed at achieving this object or purpose by prescribing the requisite restrictions," the bench added.
The Delhi High Court had earlier dismissed Bajpai's appeal upon which he had filed the SLP in the apex court.
){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}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}