NITIN SHANKAR DESHPANDE Vs. PRESIDENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these proceedings which have been filed in the public interest, the Petitioner has sought an appropriate writ, restraining Respondents 5 to 9 from pleading or acting before any Court or before any other authority in India, except the Supreme Court of India or any other High Courts, other than the High Court of Judicature at Bombay "in view of the provisions of the Constitution of India". Respondents 5 to 9 are enrolled as Advocates on the rolls of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. Each of them was appointed as an Additional Judge of this Court. Each of them tendered his resignation during the course of the term of appointment as Additional Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The most recent of the resignations was that of the Ninth Respondent on 8 May 2012, while the farthest in point of time, is that of the Fifth Respondent, who demitted office fourteen years ago. All of them have reverted to practise at the Bar. The central point involved in these proceedings turns upon the construction of Article 220 of the Constitution. According to the Petitioner, though Article 220 in its present form contains a prohibition on a person who has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court from pleading or acting in any Court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court and other High Courts, a purposive interpretation must be placed on those provisions so as to bring within their purview even Additional Judges who have before being confirmed in service relinquished office.

(2.) Now, in this background, it would be necessary to record the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the Petitioner. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that:

(3.) These submissions have been opposed on behalf of Respondents 5 to 9 each of whom is represented by Counsel. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Fifth Respondent submits that: