Article 124(7) of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision aimed at upholding the independence and integrity of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. It imposes a restriction on individuals who have served as judges of the highest court, preventing them from engaging in certain professional activities after demitting office. This provision is designed to prevent potential conflicts of interest and maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial system.
This article forms part of Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution, which deals with the Union Judiciary. It is a specific post-retirement restriction placed upon former Supreme Court judges, distinct from other provisions relating to the Supreme Court’s composition, powers, and procedures.
Original Text
The original text of Article 124(7) of the Indian Constitution is as follows:
“(7) No person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India.”
Detailed Explanation
Article 124(7) imposes a complete and absolute prohibition on former Supreme Court judges regarding professional practice after their retirement. Let’s break down its components:
-
“No person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court”: This refers to any individual who has served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India, irrespective of the duration of their tenure or the reason for demitting office (retirement, resignation, removal, etc.).
-
“shall plead or act”: This is the core prohibition.
- “Plead” refers to appearing in a court of law and arguing a case.
- “Act” is a broader term and includes any professional engagement in connection with a case or matter, such as giving legal opinions, advising parties, drafting documents, or any other activity undertaken in a professional capacity in relation to proceedings before courts or authorities. The scope of “act” is generally interpreted widely to cover any form of professional assistance or representation.
-
“in any court”: This includes the Supreme Court itself, High Courts, District Courts, and any other subordinate courts established under the law within India. The prohibition is absolute across the entire judicial hierarchy.
-
“or before any authority”: This extends the prohibition beyond traditional courts to include various tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies, commissions, or any other body exercising adjudicatory or statutory functions within India. This ensures that former judges cannot use their past position or influence before any forum where legal or quasi-legal matters are decided.
-
“within the territory of India”: This specifies the geographical limit of the prohibition. Former Supreme Court judges are prohibited from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority located within the geographical boundaries of India. This does not restrict them from practicing or engaging in other activities outside India.
The primary rationale behind this prohibition is to maintain the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and the administration of justice. It aims to prevent:
- Any possibility of former judges using their privileged position, knowledge of internal court workings, or personal relationships with sitting judges/authorities to influence outcomes.
- Any perception among litigants or the public that a former judge appearing in a case might sway the decision-making process, thereby eroding confidence in the fairness of the justice system.
- Situations where judges might be consciously or unconsciously influenced during their tenure by the prospect of lucrative post-retirement practice opportunities.
This strict prohibition contrasts with the provision for High Court judges (Article 220), who are restricted from practicing only in the Supreme Court and in High Courts other than the High Court where they were permanent judges. The higher restriction on Supreme Court judges reflects their position at the apex of the Indian judicial system.
Detailed Notes
- Applies to any person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
- The prohibition is absolute and mandatory (“shall not”).
- Prohibits both “pleading” (arguing cases in court) and “acting” (any professional engagement related to cases or matters).
- The prohibition covers all courts within the territory of India (Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, etc.).
- The prohibition also covers any authority within the territory of India that exercises adjudicatory or statutory functions.
- The restriction applies irrespective of the reason for demitting office (retirement, resignation, removal).
- The purpose is to preserve the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the judiciary.
- Aims to prevent potential conflicts of interest and the use of past position or influence.
- Designed to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.
- The prohibition is limited to the territory of India; it does not restrict practice outside India.
- This provision is stricter than the restriction placed on former High Court judges under Article 220.
Additional Comments
- The strictness of Article 124(7) is often cited as a safeguard for judicial independence.
- Debates sometimes arise regarding post-retirement appointments of Supreme Court judges to tribunals or other government positions, which, while not “pleading or acting” as prohibited, are sometimes seen by critics as potentially compromising judicial independence. However, such appointments are not prohibited by Article 124(7) itself.
- The scope of “acting” is interpreted broadly by courts to ensure the spirit of the prohibition is not circumvented.
- This article reflects a policy choice by the framers of the Constitution to impose a significant professional restriction on former apex court judges for the greater good of maintaining judicial integrity.
Summary
Article 124(7) of the Indian Constitution mandates that no individual who has served as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India after demitting office. This absolute prohibition serves to protect the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the judiciary by preventing potential conflicts of interest and the perception of undue influence arising from a former judge’s past position, thereby upholding public confidence in the administration of justice.