In a recent Supreme Court hearing, Justice BV Nagarathna raised eyebrows with her candid remarks regarding the income tax disclosures of advocates. The observations came during a session where the court was hearing a plea from an advocate whose provisional appointment as a civil judge was revoked following a post-selection verification. The bench, comprising Justices Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, was reviewing a challenge to a Madras High Court ruling that had upheld the cancellation of the advocate’s appointment in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service.
Advocate’s Income Disclosure Under Scrutiny
The bench was informed about the reasons for the rejection of the advocate’s candidature, one of which pertained to his reported professional income. This prompted Justice Nagarathna to humorously question the authenticity of income disclosures by advocates, asking, “Please tell me, which advocate discloses the true income in his income tax returns?” Her comment elicited laughter from the courtroom.
Judicial Appointment and Income Relevance
Justice Nagarathna further distinguished between non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and an advocate’s earnings, questioning the latter’s relevance in judicial appointments. “We can understand if he had not disclosed criminal antecedents, but what his earnings were as an advocate, how is it relevant? How can he lose his post?” she queried.
The advocate’s appointment was canceled despite his selection in the recruitment for the 2014-15 to 2016-17 vacancies. He had disclosed a past criminal case in which he was acquitted. However, the Madras High Court, after verifying candidates’ character and antecedents, found him unsuitable, leading to the cancellation of his appointment by the Tamil Nadu government in November 2022. The High Court dismissed his challenge in February 2024, stating that provisional selection or an appointment order did not confer an indefeasible right to the position.
State’s Position on Financial Integrity
Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, representing the state, argued that the issue extended beyond income disclosure to financial transactions that questioned the advocate’s integrity. The state provided that candidates are allowed to address adverse findings before a final decision on their appointment is made.
More Read
Justice Nagarathna noted that complaints often surface once a person’s name is considered for judicial office, referring to them as “love letters” against sitting judicial officers. The advocate had reportedly declared his annual professional income as ₹4.5 lakh, which Justice Nagarathna questioned in terms of its relevance post-clearance of the recruitment process.
Income and Judicial Service
Justice Nagarathna also reflected on the financial dynamics of transitioning from advocacy to judicial roles, sharing her own experience of joining the bench for public service despite earning significantly more as a lawyer. “₹26,000 was the salary when I joined (as judge). And my income at the bar was much more. But I chose this for service of the nation,” she remarked, noting that many advocates earn substantially more than their judicial counterparts.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate DS Naidu, representing the aggrieved advocate, highlighted an instance where a Supreme Court judge, before elevation from the Bar, had deliberately not recovered nearly ₹10 crore in professional fees to avoid any future allegations of impropriety.
More Read
The court has directed counsel to verify if any proceedings were initiated against the advocate’s wife, also a serving judicial officer, while cautioning against taking any action solely based on the Supreme Court’s inquiry. The case is scheduled for further hearing on August 10.
