Can’t bar them from practising in courts, govt. tells SC

Being a ‘Member of Parliament’ is not a “full-time” job and legislators cannot be stopped from doubling up as advocates, the Centre told the Supreme Court on Monday.

Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal made this submission before a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay to ban sitting MPs from practising in courts.

The Centre’s stand is significant as many Opposition MPs are senior advocates like Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P. Chiadambaram, who play vital roles in politically-sensitive cases in the Supreme Court. Mr. Singhvi recently won the case for the Congress party in the Karnataka elections.

Under Rule 49

The focus of the petition is Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which mandates that “an advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern”.

Mr. Upadhyay, represented by senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, argued that MPs are the “employees” of the Government of India. They draw salaries and there is nothing “part-time about being an MP”.

“The Supreme Court functions only for about 185 days a year. So are we all part-time judges and part-time lawyers?” Mr. Naphade asked the Bench.

He reasoned that being a parliamentarian is a full -time job. “Though most of the MPs sit in the canteen, the House can be convened any time... it can function the whole night,” Mr. Naphade argued.

‘Not employees’

But Mr. Venugopal said MPs cannot still be viewed as “employees or servants” of the government or a “concern”.

The AG said MPs are elected by the people and not appointed by the government. Nobody can control the manner in which they work and the government cannot take any disciplinary action against them.

“By your logic, even Opposition MPs should be employees of the government?” Mr. Venugopal said, snubbing the petitioner.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud agreed that the word “employment”, in common law, meant a “master and servant” relationship. “And, I should say, the Government of India is not the master of any MP,” Justice Chandrachud observed.

Mr. Venugopal said it was the fundamental right of a person to carry on his or her vocation.

“Lawyer-MPs have done great service to the nation... We cannot prevent a person from practising their profession,” the AG said.

When Chief Justice Misra asked whether government ministers were entitled to practice law, Mr. Venugopal replied that they were not. “Being a minister is a full-time job. He is occupied the whole time,” the top government law officer said.