Mumbai: A public interest litigation (PIL) has urged the Bombay High Court to restrain its five former judges from practising in the same court after resigning as judges.
The PIL says five additional judges of the High Court, who had resigned from their post after 12 to 15 months of their appointment, should not be allowed to practice as they were barred by article 220 of the Constitution.
The five additional judges named in the PIL are Y S Jahagirdar, A Y Sakhare, Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, S U Kamdar and Girish Godbole who were elevated to the post from the bar.
Article 220 of the Constitution says, "No person who, after the commencement of this Constitution, has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court and the other High Courts".
The PIL, filed by activist Nitin Deshpande, argued that an additional judge discharges functions of the same character as spirit as a permanent judge of the High Court.
The petitioner contended that there was no difference between the two in respect of their status and other incidents of office except that an additional judge can hold office only for the period specified in his appointment terms.
Therefore, it is an erroneous premise that article 220 would not be attracted in the case of additional judges, the PIL stated.