A Lifelong Ban for a Five-Year Tenure: The Constitutional Infirmity of Rule 7, BCI Rules and Rule 16(2), Tribunal Reforms Rules, 2021

Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India Rules and Rule 16(2) of the Tribunal Reforms Rules, 2021 bar former members of the NCLT and NCLAT from practising before any Bench of those tribunals, anywhere in India, for life. This article examines whether that restriction can survive constitutional scrutiny.

It argues that the rules invert the constitutional hierarchy: a former permanent High Court Judge is restricted only before their own High Court under Article 220, and a short-tenure Additional Judge faces no restriction at all, while a tribunal member who served four or five years is barred nationwide. The article tests the rules against Article 14 (equality), Article 19(1)(g) (the right to practise a profession, applying the proportionality standard) and the limits of the Bar Council’s rule-making power under the Advocates Act, 1961.

It concludes by proposing a proportionate alternative: a cooling-off period of two to three years, limited to the Bench where the former member actually sat.