The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned a plea filed by a former member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging restrictions on post-retirement practice before the tribunal. The Bench observed that the prohibition was a very reasonable restriction intended to preserve the dignity and independence of the institution.

The petitioner argued that restrictions preventing former NCLAT members from practising before the tribunal were unconstitutional and exceeded limitations contemplated under the Constitution. Referring to the Seventh Constitutional Amendment, he submitted that retired judges were permitted to practise in courts where they had not served and contended that a similar principle should apply to tribunal members.

The Bench, however, drew a distinction between High Courts and tribunals, observing that NCLAT functions as “one judicial authority” even though it may have multiple benches. “You are a judicial member of NCLAT, not a judicial member of a bench. A bench is only an administrative convenience where the chairman will ask you to discharge judicial duty in a particular bench.”

Questioning the petitioner’s insistence on practising before the tribunal after retirement, the Bench remarked:

“We will welcome you to address us in the Supreme Court, but not for NCLAT.”

The Court further observed that restrictions on post-retirement practice were rooted in maintaining “independence and fairness and transparency in judiciary” and ensuring that former members do not exploit the stature of offices previously held. “Not be permitted to exploit high office that you have held and the dignity of the office. It’s a very reasonable restriction on your right to practice,” the Bench said.

The petitioner relied on earlier High Court decisions striking down similar restrictions and argued that a complete prohibition would be disproportionate. He also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2016 (4) SCC 257, on proportionality and reasonable restrictions.

However, after prolonged exchange, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the matter with liberty to pursue alternative remedies. The Court permitted withdrawal of the plea.