The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday questioned the fairness of Bar Council of India (BCI) rules that place certain restrictions on former judicial officers from practicing law after they retire or demit office [VN Madhav Reddy v. The Secretary and Anr and connected matters].

The BCI's rules prohibit former judicial officers from practicing law before courts that are presided over by judges who hold a rank that is equal to or lower than the rank held by the judicial officer while s/he was in service.

The BCI's counsel yesterday indicated that this bar would apply even if the retired judge seeks to practice in a district other than the one where s/he had served.

Justice ES Indiresh, however, observed that even retired High Court judges are allowed to practice the law in High Courts other than the ones over which they presided.

The judge questioned why a similar principle could not be extended to retired district judges, so that they may freely practice the law before courts in other districts without any restriction.

"If a retired High Court judge can practice in Supreme Court, if it is permitted, or if a retired High Court judge will appear in any other High Court of which he was not the presiding judge, that is permissible … apply the same principle," he remarked.

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions that challenged a BCI resolution passed in August 2013, which modified Rule 7 of Part VI, Chapter III of the BCI's Rules on Professional Standards applicable to lawyers.

The said rule imposes certain restrictions on judicial officers who have retired or otherwise ceased to be in judicial service when it comes to practicing as advocates after demitting office.

The modified rule states,

“An officer (including judicial officers, tribunal members, etc.), after his retirement or otherwise ceasing to be in service for any reasons, if enrolled as an Advocate shall not practice in any of the Judicial, administrative Courts/ Tribunals/ authorities which are presided over by an officer equivalent or lower to the post which such officer last held.”

The BCI's 2013 resolution and the subsequent introduction of this modified rule were first challenged in 2014 by way of petitions by three individuals. Later, in February this year, an association of retired judicial officers from Karnataka also filed a petition challenging such legal restrictions.

On Wednesday, Justice Indiresh questioned whether the legal restrictions under challenge were fair.

"How do you sustain this?" he asked the BCI's counsel.

"All of India, it is applicable. And the constitutionality has not been challenged anywhere else. BCI has a statutory power to make rules like this," the BCI counsel replied.

"Whether it conforms to Article 14 (right to equality and against non-discrimination)? … Even retired judges of High Court will practice before the Supreme Court. Such being the case, how your rules will provide for this?" the single-judge remarked.

The Court proceeded to observe that a judge who retired from the Karnataka High Court could practice before the Madras High Court after he retires.

He questioned why a similar leeway could not be extended to retired district judges so that they may be allowed to practice without restrictions in districts other than the ones in which they served as judges.

During an earlier hearing in March this year, another single-judge Bench of the Court had sought clarification on the following aspects:

1. Whether the BCI's restriction would apply to a retired judicial officer appearing before an arbitral tribunal, if the presiding officer of the arbitral tribunal were to be an officer of the district judiciary of the equivalent rank or lower?

2. Whether the same would apply to a member of the district judiciary, who has been appointed as an additional judge of the High Court, who is not made permanent?

3. Whether the restriction is only as regards courts and tribunals where the judicial officer has presided over, or whether it would apply to all the courts and tribunals within the State of Karnataka, particularly since if the retired judicial officer was a Principal District Judge, it would virtually become an embargo on him/ her from appearing before any court in the State of Karnataka?

The BCI's counsel yesterday said that it has filed an affidavit addressing the Court's queries.

The matter will be heard further on October 27.