Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Saturday, 08 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-09-25

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India & Anr

Bench: 3 — A.M. Khanwilkar

In Brief

A legislator (MP/MLA/MLC) filed a petition seeking a court order to prevent legislators from practising as advocates while serving in office, arguing it constitutes conflict of interest and professional misconduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council of India Rules contain no express prohibition on legislators practising law. Rule 49, which restricts full-time salaried employees from practising, does not apply to elected representatives as they occupy a unique constitutional status distinct from employment. The Court held that without express statutory restriction, it cannot debar legislators from practising as advocates, and that professional misconduct must be determined case-by-case, not by presumption of legislative status alone.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Professional Conduct Advocates Act Separation of Powers Public Interest Litigation Conflict of Interest

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login