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 dismissed

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India & Anr

Bench: 3 — A.M. Khanwilkar

In Brief

A petitioner sought a direction to debar legislators (MPs/MLAs/MLCs) from practising law while serving in Parliament or State Legislatures, arguing they are paid public servants with full-time obligations and that allowing dual practice creates conflict of interest. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules—which prohibits full-time salaried employees from practising—does not apply to legislators. The Court found legislators occupy a unique constitutional position; receiving salary does not make them full-time employees in the statutory sense. With no express prohibition in the Advocates Act or Rules, the Court refused to impose restrictions, noting the Bar Council itself opposes any such ban. Professional misconduct must be determined case-by-case, not by presumption of status.

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

Advocacy Profession Professional Conduct Conflict of Interest Legislators' Rights Bar Council Regulation Constitutional Law Public Interest Litigation

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