There are many lawmakers and legislators in the country who do business of law. Since the post of profit is in discussion, this discussion becomes also natural whether MPs and MLAs should be stopped from advocating. To reach the right conclusion in this regard, there must be a proper assessment of the arguments of both its parties and the opposition.
Arguments in favor of allowing parliamentarians and legislators to advocate:
- If MPs and MLAs are allowed to advocate, then the biggest benefit will be that skilled people in the legislature will be able to enter.
- The people who advocate will have a better understanding of the law which will benefit from their expertise at the time of the creation of laws in the legislature.
- The Indian constitution has provided freedom to do business. If public representatives are prohibited from advocating it, it will violate their fundamental rights.
- If Parliamentarians and MLAs are prevented from advocating in India then this would be a regressive move. It is known that different countries of the world are being involved in the legislature of experts in different areas. Since MPs and MLAs are not appointed by the government, they are not stopped from doing other business like civil servants.
- It is wrong to suspect that MPs and legislators who practice the advocates can lobby the corporate world. It is known that Parliament is not the place to lobby and most of the parliament is governed by its rules and laws.
Arguments in favor of not permitting Parliamentarians and MLAs to advocate:
- Advocacy is a serious profession that requires a lot of time. If the person has more time in the Representative Advocacy, his presence in the legislature will be affected.
- If a lawyer has taken a company or corporate case for lobby, then he can lobby in Parliament or the Assembly in relation to this matter.
- Many types of allowances and salaries are already being provided to the public representatives. If they get income from other sources then it would be immoral.
- Adopting a profession of advocacy through public representatives is also against the rule 49 of the Bar Council of India. Under this, any full-time paid worker cannot advocate in the court.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that the people's representatives should pay full attention to fulfill their duties and in the interest of the people who choose them, not to earn money from other businesses. Most of all, this will strengthen the trust of the general public over them.
