Sub: Private legal practice by MPs.
Sanjeev Goyal
Concerned Ministry: Parliament Affairs.
According to the Advocates Act, 1961, advocates engaged in full-time salaried employment are prohibited from practicing law in their own name. This is reinforced by Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which bars advocates from practicing while holding any full-time salaried position. However, this rule does not apply to legislators, despite their roles being publicly funded and involving significant responsibilities.
On 25 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (in February 2018), which sought a ban on legislators practicing law during their tenure. The Court ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs), State Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), and State Legislative Councils (MLCs) are not considered "full-time salaried employees" under the Advocates Act, and therefore, Rule 49 does not restrict them from practicing law while in office.
This raises an important question: If legislators are not considered full-time employees, does that imply that representing lakhs of citizens in a democracy is merely a part-time responsibility? There have been instances where legislators absent from Parliament proceedings were found engaged in fighting personal legal cases in courts by totally ignoring high standards in public life expected from them. While earning livelihood from Government salary they fight cases against the Government, is not it against the basic concept of loyalty & integrity? What message does it give to society? Are not MPs expected to set high standards of ethics in public life?
On average, a Member of Parliament in the Lok Sabha represents approximately 2.6 million people. Yet the law permits them to simultaneously pursue private legal practice, suggesting that such representation doesn't require full-time commitment. What is the rationale behind this assumption? Is the role of a legislator — responsible for lawmaking, public welfare, and voicing the concerns of millions — seen as less demanding than that of a government clerk, who is required to devote full time and energy to their duties?
Legislators receive hefty salaries, allowances, and public trust. Allowing them to engage in personal legal practice raises concerns about conflict of interest, dilution of public responsibility, and fairness to their constituents. Is it truly justifiable that while public servants, even a peon, at every level are held to standards of full-time dedication, elected representatives are allowed to engage in private practice during their term?
Before elections, candidates promise complete commitment to public service. Shouldn’t this promise translate into undivided attention to legislative responsibilities after election as well? Is it really possible for any one to do justice with the job of MP on part time basis. When there is no dearth of personalities keen to fight elections what is the need to invite such people not willing to offer full time undivided devotion to the public cause.
It is humbly requested that this apparent discrepancy between legal interpretation and public expectation may be given a serious reconsideration — both ethically and legislatively.
Sudha Raj
--
Membership Application- Please visit...
We are Live on https://twitter.com/dwarkaforum
We are on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Dwarkaforum
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DWARKA FORUM (Regd)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dwarka-residen...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dwarka-residents/CAEoGZbumcMNHTFYh4nLGxVq4C0SmkCiUbFro%3DoQYQ0MrZkhwvQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Vinod Sharma
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dwarka-residents/CABPBYLUrYF_amnUcarsB4COf0fSLJ5vjdaf9Y1BbrjOeY2-74g%40mail.gmail.com.