New Delhi, April 28 (IANS): The Supreme Court Monday said that it had no powers to prevent a lawyer, the child of a sitting judge from practicing in a court where their parent is dispensing justice as it was for the bar councils and not courts to proceed against the lawyers who don't adhere to professional ethics.
"If any member of the bar who is not following the professional ethics, be it a son of a judge, file a complaint before the bar council. There can't be a judicial order," said a bench of Chief Justice R.M.Lodha, Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph.
The court said this while dismissing a plea seeking its intervention to put an end to the practice of sons of judges practicising in the same courts where their fathers are sitting as judges. Upon dismissal, PIL petitioner, advocate M.L.Sharma withdrew the plea.
As Sharma pressed his plea for the court's intervention, Chief Justice Lodha said that "this is not a jurisdiction of the court. Whatever be the status of the lawyer (not adhering to professional ethics), take the complaint (before the Bar Council) to its logical conclusion. Lead the evidence (in support of your complaint)".
"Have you filed a complaint before the bar council," the court asked as Sharma urged it to look his submissions.
At the outset of the hearing, in an obvious reference to Sharma's habit of filing a PIL on the drop of the hat, the bench said: "You want your name recorded in Limca Book of Records for filing largest number of PILs."
Advocate Sharma had sought the direction for prohibiting the practice by the kith and kin of the sitting judges in the high courts and the Supreme Court for the restoration of faith in the values of the judiciary in the interest of justice.
The PIL petition said that the Supreme Court, in its Full Court Meeting in 1997 had adopted a Charter of The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life which was meant to serve as a guide of conduct for judges.
"Section (4) A of the charter said that the "judge should not permit any member of his immediate family, such as spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law or any other close relative, if a member of the Bar, to appear before him or even be associated in any manner with a cause to be dealt with by him."
Sharma said that in 2004, the then Punjab and Haryana High Court's Chief Justice B.K. Roy had issued an administrative order barring a group of 10-12 judges from hearing any case argued by their relatives.