2012 (7) TMI 1052 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Article 220 of the Constitution.
2. Distinction between Permanent Judges and Additional Judges.
3. Legislative history and amendments to Articles 217, 220, and 224.
4. Right of Additional Judges to practice after demitting office.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Article 220 of the Constitution:
The Petitioner argued that Article 220 should be interpreted to include Additional Judges, asserting that excluding them would defeat the object of the provision. They contended that Additional Judges are equivalent to Permanent Judges in all respects and that a literal interpretation would undermine the purpose of Article 220. The Petitioner emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation to maintain the independence of the judiciary and prevent any apprehension among litigants regarding the impartiality of justice dispensed by former Additional Judges.

2. Distinction between Permanent Judges and Additional Judges:
Respondents opposed the Petitioner's submissions, highlighting that Articles 217 to 220 and 224 of the Constitution distinguish between Permanent and Additional Judges. They argued that the words of the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, and there is no need for a purposive interpretation. The Respondents emphasized that the Constitution expressly imposes a prohibition on practice before the same Court only on Permanent Judges, not Additional Judges. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in N. Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose (2009) 7 SCC 1, which recognized the distinction between Permanent and Additional Judges.

3. Legislative history and amendments to Articles 217, 220, and 224:
The Court examined the legislative history underlying the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution in 1956, which introduced provisions for appointing Additional Judges and modified the prohibition on practice under Article 220. The amendment restricted the prohibition to Permanent Judges, allowing Additional Judges to practice before the same High Court after demitting office. The Court emphasized that the legislative history reinforces the need to adopt a plain and ordinary connotation of the words used in Article 220.

4. Right of Additional Judges to practice after demitting office:
The Court rejected the Petitioner's submission that the expression "as" in Article 220 should be interpreted to mean "like a permanent judge." The Court distinguished the case from Dr. Asim Kumar Bose vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 345, where a broad and liberal interpretation was applied to a rule of eligibility. The Court held that it would be impermissible to rewrite the language of Article 220 to include Additional Judges. The Court also noted that the appointment of Additional Judges as a gateway to becoming Permanent Judges cannot justify altering the constitutional provision through judicial interpretation.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the Constitution specifically confines the prohibition on practice before the same High Court to Permanent Judges. The Court emphasized that the constitutional choice must be respected, and any change to the provision should be made by Parliament, not through judicial interpretation. The Petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.