Constitution of India
Article 220: Restriction on practice after being a permanent Judge
Part VI — The States (Chapter V — The High Courts in the States)
Article 220
WHAT IT SAYS: No person who has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court after the commencement of the Constitution shall plead or act in any court or before any authority in India, except the Supreme Court and the other High Courts. EXPLANATION: The expression 'High Court' does not include a High Court for a State specified in Part B of the First Schedule as it existed before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. A retired permanent HC Judge CANNOT appear in — the same High Court, subordinate courts, tribunals, or any other authority in the same or any jurisdiction. 2. A retired permanent HC Judge CAN appear in — the Supreme Court and any other High Court where they did not serve. 3. Does NOT apply to Additional Judges or Acting Judges appointed under Article 224. 4. Does NOT prohibit giving legal advice, arbitration, academic work, or legal scholarship. KEY DOCTRINE: Post-retirement practice restriction doctrine — ensures judicial independence is not compromised by the prospect of future legal practice, preventing conflicts of interest and maintaining public confidence in judicial impartiality.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. British Convention (England) — In England, it is a long-standing convention that once a barrister is elevated to the Bench, they do not return to practice at the Bar after ceasing to hold office. Original provision: Unwritten convention — a Judge who has sat on the Bench does not resume practice. What India kept: Codified this convention into a constitutional prohibition rather than leaving it as mere convention. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Constitutional codification instead of convention — India could not rely on mere convention given the nascent democratic system and need for enforceable standards. 2. Partial relaxation via Seventh Amendment (1956) — Unlike the absolute British convention, India allows retired HC Judges to practise in the Supreme Court and other High Courts, balancing post-retirement livelihood with judicial integrity. 3. Distinction between permanent and additional/acting Judges — India's provision applies only to permanent Judges, not additional or acting ones, which is a uniquely Indian adaptation to address practical recruitment concerns. IF ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: The framers felt a written constitutional bar was needed because India's judiciary was being built afresh, and unwritten conventions might not carry sufficient weight to prevent conflicts of interest.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 7 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE: Draft Article 196 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Moved an amendment to simplify Draft Article 196, proposing a total ban on retired HC Judges practising in any court or before any authority within India. 2. Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab) — Proposed limiting the ban only to 'the jurisdiction of that High Court' instead of all of India, arguing a nationwide ban was excessive. 3. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces) — Supported the broader ban, citing British precedents and the need to prevent ex-Judges from leveraging former positions. 4. Shri H.V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar) — Supported a limited ban, warning that a nationwide restriction might deter senior advocates from accepting judgeship. 5. Shri B.M. Gupte — Argued against a total ban, contending the existing system of allowing practice outside one's own jurisdiction had caused no problems. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Scope of the ban — Sardar Hukam Singh and H.V. Kamath wanted the restriction limited to the jurisdiction of the same High Court; Ambedkar and Saksena wanted a total India-wide ban. 2. Whether to include pre-Constitution Judges — One member proposed removing the words 'after the commencement of the Constitution' to include all Judges past and present; this was rejected. FINAL OUTCOME: Ambedkar's amendment for a complete India-wide ban on practice was adopted; all narrower amendments were rejected. The adopted text applied only to permanent Judges post-commencement. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: Described his amendment as a necessary 'rewording' of the draft article, and supported it on grounds of dignity of the High Court and the special relations that Judges cultivate during their tenure.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Nitin Shankar Deshpande v. President of India — The Court examined Article 220 in the context of additional/temporary Judges and held that the spirit behind Article 220 extends to preventing undue influence even beyond its literal scope of permanent Judges. 2. C.N. Ramachandran Nair v. Bar Council of Kerala — The Kerala High Court addressed the interplay between Article 220 and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, clarifying the rights of retired Judges to resume practice as advocates. 3. Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala — The Supreme Court examined the relationship between the Advocates Act, the Bar Council's regulatory powers, and constitutional provisions including Article 220 regarding who may practise in courts. NOTE: Article 220 has not been the subject of a large number of Supreme Court decisions, as it deals with post-retirement conduct and is largely self-enforcing through professional ethics. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Law Commission of India (14th Report, M.C. Setalvad, Chairman) — Opposed any relaxation of the practice ban, holding that retired Judges practising in courts greatly detracts from the dignity of courts and the administration of justice. 2. Law Commission of India (72nd Report, Justice H.R. Khanna, Chairman, 1978) — Rejected the Tamil Nadu Government's proposal to amend Article 220 to allow retired Judges to practise after a cooling-off period, reaffirming that the provision is of a 'salutary nature'. 3. Shri B.N. Datar (Minister of State, Home Affairs, 1956) — Acknowledged during Parliamentary debates on the 7th Amendment that the rigid original Article 220 had 'created a certain amount of disinclination or reluctance on the part of leading advocates to accept the office of High Court Judges', justifying the partial relaxation.