29. Supreme Court Advocates (Practice in HighCourt) Bill - Page 316

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 299

side. The second exception proposed to be made is with regard to a lawyer who was an ex-judge and has been enrolled, because before the Constitution came into existence there was no rule prohibiting judges, after retirement, from practice. They were free to practise and there are many cases where judges have been enrolled in the Supreme Court and are allowed to practise, but there are cases where persons, who, before the Constitution, were appointed to the High Courts and were required to give an undertaking that they would not practice in that particular High Court. Our exception says that if there is any advocate of the Supreme Court, who was an ex-judge of a High court and had given an undertaking not to practise in a particular High Court (which must be the High Court of his own province) then he shall not practise notwithstanding the provision contained in this Bill. These are the simple provisions of the Bill.

Shri C. Subramaniam (Madras) : What is the reason for the first exception?

Dr. Ambedkar: The reason is this. Under the Bar Councils Act a special provision exists. I believe there are only now three courts which have got original jurisdiction. All other High Courts are only appellate High Courts and they have no original jurisdiction but they have been invested with special powers to make rules for the enrolment of persons on the original side. As it is not proposed to amend the Bar Councils Act, it is felt desirable to keep that provision intact. That cannot cause much difficulty, because after all when the matter is remitted back by the Supreme Court to the High Court it will in all probability and in most cases be dealt with by the appellate side of the High Court.

Shri S. N. Sinha (Bihar) : Some of the High Courts have got original jurisdiction in cases like probate and company law. Even in these cases are you going to prohibit?

Dr. Ambedkar: Leave something for the local lawyers.

Mr. Chairman : Motion moved

“ That the Bill to authorise advocates of the Supreme Court to practise as of right in any High Court, be taken into consideration.”