1 
  

 
  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association & Anr … PETITIONERS
Versus
Union of India

… RESPONDENTS

SUGGESTIONS OF MR. GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, SENIOR ADVOCATE

DATE: 5TH NOVEMBER, 2015
PLACE: NEW DELHI 
  

 
  

 2 
  

 
  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association & Anr … PETITIONERS
Versus
Union of India

… RESPONDENTS

SUGGESTIONS OF MR. GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, SENIOR ADVOCATE

1. The following suggestions are being made in the light of the order
passed by this Court on 3rd November 2015, as per which
suggestions are to be made to improve transparency, formulation of
eligibility criteria, establishment of a Secretariat and a mechanism to
deal with complaints or adverse reports.

2. The said suggestions must be consistent with the Second Judges’ case
i.e. Supreme Courts Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, (1993)
4 SCC 441. It may be pointed out that paragraphs 2 to 2.2 of the
‘Memorandum showing the Procedure for Appointment of Chief
Justice of India and Justices of the Supreme Court of India’
(“Memorandum”) do not require any amendment, except that there

 
  

 3 
  

 
  

should be a consistent practice about the exact time when the
outgoing Chief Justice of India would forward a recommendation
about the appointment of the next Chief Justice of India so that there
is no ‘misgiving’ or ‘suggestiveness’. It is submitted that the outgoing
Chief Justice of India may make a recommendation in respect of his
successor at least 45 days before the date on which he demits office.
If for any reason the outgoing Chief Justice comes to a firm
conclusion about the total lack of fitness (moral fitness) to hold the
Office, he should consult the President in his capacity as the gaurdian
of the Constitution. The President may then in his independent
constitutional capacity consult such judges as are necessary to form
his opinion.

3. In so far as the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court is
concerned, it is submitted that paragraphs 3 and 3.1 of the
Memorandum contemplate that the opinion of the Chief Justice of
India would be formed in consultation with a Collegium of the 4
seniormost puisne Judges of the Supreme Court. If the successor
Chief Justice of India is not one of the 4 seniormost puisne Judges,
he would be made a part of the Collegium, as he should have a hand

 
  

 4 
  

 
  

in the selection of Judges who will function during his term as a
Chief Justice of India.

4. In addition, para 3.2 of the Memorandum enables the ascertainment
of the opinion of the seniormost Judge in the Supreme Court who
has been elevated to the High Court from where the person is
recommended.

If the seniormost Judge does not have adequate

knowledge, the next seniormost Judge in the Supreme Court from
that High Court should be consulted.

Paragraph 3.3 of the

Memorandum clarifies that the requirement of consultation with a
Judge of the Supreme Court would not be confined only to a Judge
who has been orginally elevated to bench of the High Court in
question, but also to a judge who may have occupied the office of a
Judge or a Chief Justice of that High Court on transfer.

5. Paragraph 3.4 of the Memorandum states that the opinion of
members

of

the

Collegium

in

respect

of

each

of

the

recommendations, as well as the seniormost Judge in the Supreme
Court from the High Court from which a prospective candidate
comes would be made in writing and the Chief Justice of India, in all
cases, must transmit his opinion, as also the opinion of all concerned
 
  

 5 
  

 
  

to the Government of India as a part of record. In the event the
Chief Justice of India or other members of the Collegium elicit views
from non-Judges, even though the consultation is not in writing, the
person seeking such opinion should make a memorandum thereof
and its substance in general terms should be conveyed to the
Government of India.

6. It is submitted that before forming a recommendation, it is necessary
that some internal criteria have to be clearly established for
appointment of a Judge or Chief Justice of a High Court, as a Judge
of the Supreme Court.

7. While the opinion of all the members of the Collegium may be in
favour of recommendation of a person to be appointed as a Judge, a
rigorous process based on objective criteria is essential for the
purpose of internal discussions in the Collegium. These criteria are
extremely vital and have to be examined with reference to the
material which is available on record in terms of judgments, case
records and other judicial functions following from a personal
interraction with the collegium. They are:-

 
  

 6 
  

 
  

1. Integrity as a lawyer or as a Judge;
2. The ability to be fearless and to withstand pressures from all
quarters including the Executive;
3. The ability to distance oneself from one’s own political or
other ideology;
4. To act free from prejudice of any kind;
5. The ability to listen;
6. The ability to be able to have a sustained sense of
contentment (i.e. the Judge must not actually be seen as
looking

for

any

post-retirement

office

from

the

Government);
7. The ability to absorb knowledge in new areas, engage with
the legal profession and other stakeholders with humility and
to become students in the process of learning;
8. The ability to withdraw from friends, former clients,
business interests and politicians;
9. The ability to migrate from a life of authority to the life of a
common man, to be able to frequently observe and imbibe
the contemporary realities of life, to be able to think out of
the box freely, and to be familiar with modern technology;

 
  

 7 
  

 
  

10. The ability to cultivate personal interest and habits which
will make the Judge a well-rounded person and would bear a
balanced personality;
11. The ability to draft well-reasoned judgments and write
clearly.

8. It is submitted that each of the members of the Collegium must
determine the qualities of candidates by themselves in the first
instance. This can be done by calling for 5-6 reported judgments of
the Learned Judge along with the case papers.

Secondly, any

published papers written by the Judge in the public domain or in any
law journal can be taking into account. In other words, the collegium
must also be able to identify the quality of judicial product and
independence. It is also necessary that must be an examination of
some cases where the Judges have not delivered final judgments, but
have passed various interim orders. By random selection only, files
containing the record must also be examined.

In addition, the

qualities of punctuality, courtesy to the Bar and fairness are indeed
substantially reputational, but in any event there can be ascertainment
by means of the suggestions which is being made in the above
paraghraphs. In order to determine the ability of the Judge, it is
 
  

 8 
  

 
  

necessary that the selectee must have utmost regard for the
Constitution, the commitment to principles of secularism and human
rights, and must be completely free from bias and should be capable
of protecting the rights of the poor and marginalised sections of the
society.

9. After each individual Judge undertakes an assessment on the above
criteria, a meeting must be fixed to discuss the appointment of
Judges on the basis of the assessment evolved by each member of the
Collegium so that the same can be placed on the table. This would
actually give a substantial unanimity, if not a convergent verdict, on
the person who would be most outstanding to be appointed as a
Judge of the Supreme Court. It is submitted that mere seniority of a
Judge or a Chief Justice is not sufficient for the purpose of
appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court. The functions of the
Supreme Court under the Constitution are not only constitutional in
character, but also have a far reaching impact in the matter of laying
of law, and represent the organ of the judiciary in the highest sense in
its interface with the Executive and the Legislature. Therefore, it is
necessary that while these may be the basic criteria, it is important
that there must be a ‘consideration of outstanding merit’ for the
 
  

 9 
  

 
  

purpose of being appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of
India.

It is submitted that if the principle of seniority on an

incumbent judge of a High Court were to be followed, it could result
in appointment of many Judges who at the end of their career, while
they may not have anything adverse against their judicial performance
in the High Court, may not be able to endow the Supreme Court
with the talent, character, farsightedness, ability, competence,
innovativeness and the skills which are required for the future.

10. It is submitted that no prospective appointee or anyone who is likely
to be considered must approach either the Chief Justice of India or
any of the members of the Collegium for the purpose of subconsciously or consciously furthering his position. It is submitted
that unless and until officially called, those who are likely to be
considered ought not to call upon either the Chief Justice of India or
the members of the Collegium.

11. It is respectfully submitted that one of the primary reasons why the
Collegium has attracted criticism from the members of the Bar is that
frequent private visits have been made by Chief Justice hopefuls and
Judge hopefuls to various members of the Collegium.
 
  

This is

 10 
  

 
  

absolutely unexpected and is inconsistent with the character of a
Judge of the Supreme Court when he is endowed with the function
of recommending a person as an appointee. Such recommendations
must be made with objectivity and must be ‘seen’ to have been done
in a spirit of fairness and distance. It is submitted that any Judge or
candidate however distinguished he may be, whoever makes a socalled ‘courtesy call’ or who seeks to call upon the Chief Justice or
any of the members of the Collegium must be treated as instantly
disqualified for further appointment.

The same applies to the

prospective appointee seeking to meet a Chief Justice of a High
Court or Judge of the Supreme Court hailing from or having served
in the same State. This is absolutely essential to safeguard the
independence of the judiciary.

12. It is also important that if any member of the Collegium wishes to
have any clarification from the Judge concerned, the same must not
take place ex parte, but the Collegium as a whole must convene an
official meeting and interact with the Judge concerned.

In my

submission that notwithstanding an assessment of outstanding merit,
it is safer to have atleast one personal interaction with the Chief

 
  

 11 
  

 
  

Justice and the members of the Collegium so that they are assured of
their recommendation.

13. It is respectfully submitted that discussions which take place within
the Collegium and the seniormost Judge of the concerned High
Court must be completely confidential. It is submitted that there
must be an affirmation to this effect in writing by each one of the
participants in the Collegium. It is respectfully submitted that the
disregarding of what happens in Collegium meetings to the
prospective appointee is indeed one of the most distressing features
of the Collegium system.

In fact, the very willingness to share

information clearly suggests that the fairness and the distance
principle is in breach.

14. It is submitted that no member of the political executive (including a
minister who may be a former lawyer) directly or indirectly will seek
to influence either the Chief Justice or the members of the
Collegium. If any such attempt is made, the Supreme Court must
commence appropriate action and must inform the President of
India that there is an attempt to influence the judiciary in the matter
of judicial appointments. It is respectfully submitted that similarly no
 
  

 12 
  

 
  

civil servant must be allowed access to the Chief Justice or the
members of the Collegium for the purpose of sharing any
information. It is respectfully submitted that in many cases political
access or the amenability to political access has itself deprived the
Collegium of respect within the legal profession.

15. The Chief Justice as well as the members of the Collegium must
follow a broad based principle of consultation in addition to their
own discernment. This can be undertaken by consulting certain
independent members of the Bar who too will file a declaration that
will not allow anyone to know about the contents of the consultation.
The above is subject to a rider.

Usually, a large number of

complaints are generated when a person is being appointed to a High
Court or to the Supreme Court. Some of these are completely
engineered and indeed the writer as a Solicitor General has had an
occasion to see many such letters. It is respectfully submitted that
only complaints which are made by a group of senior lawyers of
stature and integrity must be entertained by the Collegium and the
Collegium must take recourse to the procedure as would be outlined
in the subsequent paragraphs. It is important that in order to enable
that there is complete strictness in the matter of professional
 
  

 13 
  

 
  

propriety that no member of the Collegium including the Chief
Justice will divulge the name of the member of the Bar who has been
consulted in the matter of recommendation lest his appearance
before that Judge may cause embarrassment to the judicial process.
Incidentally, in the event of a lawyer being consulted, it must be a
formal consultation in the presence of all the members of the
Collegium.

It is submitted that this Court must publish such criteria as are
relevant for appointment to the Supreme Court on its website. It is
also submitted that similar criteria must apply to the appointment of
Judges to the High Courts and be similarly published.

16. It is submitted that diversity in the matter of representation is also
significant. In other words, it is also necessary to bear in mind that
all sections of society, in the event that the criteria mentioned above
including merit are adequately satisfied, then the same must also be
taken into account. It is respectfully submitted that the number of
candidates who must actually arise for consideration must not be less
than 1.

In other words, there must be a panel of at least 3

outstanding candidates for the appointment of 1 Judge of the
 
  

 14 
  

 
  

Supreme Court and there should be a process of interaction to
choose the best between the members of the collegium and the
candidates independently.

17. It is respectfully submitted that in order to enable timely
appointments, the Collegium must have a proper Secretariat. The
Secretariat must consist of retired officers of the Indian
Administrative Service or those who possess a degree in Masters of
Business Administration or such other competent persons who
would have administrative skills in maintaining and running a
Secretariat. The Secretariat must also consist of persons who will be
administered an oath of secrecy that no proceedings of the Collegium
or recommendations will be divulged.

18. It is submitted that the Secretariat should be tasked with the
following functions –

(a) Officers who will keep computerised database about the
judgments and orders delivered by Judges in the various High
Courts and Supreme Court;

 
  

 15 
  

 
  

(b) In addition, the convenor of the Secretariat would upon the
directions of the Collegium in fact summon such judgments
(original copies/certified copies) and also the records of the case
from the concerned High Court.
(c) There must also be an Advisory Board in the Secretariat. This is
the tier which should be capable of verifying discreetly matters
which may touch upon either the integrity, character, reputation
or complaints in relation to prospective candidates.

It is

submitted that in order to obviate any generation of false data by
Executive, who may like to oppose the appointment of Judges
who may be independent, it would be far safer that the Collegium
to have a certain independent input from this Advisory Board that
should be led by 3 eminent persons. Each of the 3 must have
held a constitutional office with great distinction. For instance, a
former Comptroller and Auditor General of India or a former
Chief Election Commissioner of India/Election Commissioner.
The Secretariat must also in consultation with the Advisor select
such officers who would assist them in the matter of verification
required.

 
  

 16 
  

 
  

19. It is submitted that if any material to the contrary is provided by the
Government, the same should again be subjected to verification by
the independent Advisory Board so that the Collegium is satisfied
about the truth or otherwise of any material.

20. However, it needs to be said that those who are familiar with the
practical workings of Government as well as the way in which the
system has operated, need to clarify that:-

a) The moment the Judge’s recommendation is afloat, people do
come to know;
b) There are many likely competitors or successors who would like
to steal a march over the incumbent in matters of seniority;
c) One of the porus methods by which the recommendation process
of an incumbent can be altered is by interventional delays by the
Department of Justice;
d) Intervention by the Intelligence Bureau; and
e) Intervention of the Union Minister for Law & Justice for political
reasons.

 
  

 17 
  

 
  

21. In fact, it must also be pointed out that verifications are often made
not by the Joint Director of the Intelligence Bureau or a senior
officials as claimed, but are delegated to subordinate officials of
paramilitary forces who are on deputation to the Intelligence Bureau.
Indeed, to place the reputation of a prospective Judge in the hands of
such persons is perilous. Very often, the Intelligence Bureau collect
materials from various journals such as Outlook, Frontline and
others and edits them as their own inputs and attributes them to
secret sources. This is not to denigrate the work of the Intelligence
Bureau, except to say that an unusually high premium on its ability
ought not be placed.

The writer has been a Counsel for the

Intelligence Beaurau and has advised on matters of National Security.

22. In view of the fact that the date of retirement of a Judge of the
Supreme Court causing a vacancy cannot change, the Secretariat must
commence the process of selection at least 90 days before the
occurrence of the vacancy and the recommendation must be sent to
the Government at least 30 days before the occurrence of the
vacancy so that the appointment is in place.

 
  

 18 
  

 
  

23. It is also submitted that the Secretariat must publish on the website
of the Supreme Court, the number of meetings of the Collegium, the
dates on which the meetings were held, the members who attended
and the time spent by the Collegium in the selection and
appointment of Judges.

24. It is further submitted that no Judge must be asked to state what he
considers are ‘his best judgments’. It is further submitted that having
regard to the prowess of Law Clerks who are presently assisting
Judges, it is often difficult to find out the true ability of a Judge to
either undertake research or discover whether there has been original
thinking on the subject.

25. It is submitted that the rationale for transfer of Judges and Chief
Justices needs to be properly understood. It is submitted that ‘we the
people of India’ certainly do not deserve a Judge who is suspect or
who lacks integrity. If the Chief Justice of India or his colleagues or
the Collegium is of the opinion that judge ought to be transferred to
another Court for reasons relating to suspicions about his integrity or
judicial ability, it is completely undesirable that any High Court must
be visited by such a Judge. In fact, there have been large scale
 
  

 19 
  

 
  

tensions in various sections in this country because it has come to be
verily believed that their High Courts have been chosen often as
‘dumping ground’ and been made 'punishment postings'.

It is,

therefore, necessary that a Judge who is short of integrity must be
confronted with the material and must be asked to demit office
failing which the Collegium must write to the President, the Prime
Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Speakers of both houses
of Parliament recommending impeachment of the Judge in question.

26. It is respectfully submitted that the transfer of Judges to gain
seniority in transferred High Courts for the purpose of being elevated
to the Supreme Court is also not a correct practice and prima facie has
been viewed as manipulative. It is necessary to discontinue such a
practice.

27. On the question of transfer of Chief Justices, it is submitted that the
performance of transferred Chief Justices has not been entirely of
consistent uniformity.

In fact the time taken by any person to

undergo a process of familiarisation and understand the local ethos,
the traditions of the High Court, the manner in which colleagues are
accustomed to be dealt with, has led to fractious behaviour in many
 
  

 20 
  

 
  

High Courts. This has seriously undermined the independence of the
judiciary. In fact, it is submitted that the Chief Justice is only the first
among the equals in a High Court. A Transferred Chief Justice,
however, unconsciously believes that he carries a slightly higher
mandate . Under these circumstances, it is necessary to revisit the
idea of transferring Chief Justices from one court to another court.
It is also important to bear in mind that former Judges of the Court
from where the transferred Chief Justice is being appointed must not
be seen to influence his decisions or make suggestions in relation to
matters of appointment. Thus, it is submitted that the transfer of
Chief Justices must be revisited in an appropriate way by the
Supreme Court.

28. It is further submitted that the concept of ‘representation’
geographically in terms of diversity may a valid consideration.
However, it must not keep out Judges who belong to the outstanding
merit criteria as long as they are seen positively better than those
from other High Courts.

29. It is submitted that a Judge must not be appointed in the High Court
in if any of his relatives practice in that Court. The definition of
 
  

 21 
  

 
  

‘relative’ is appended to the schedule herein. It is also important to
bear in mind that negative briefing is a well-known practice in High
Courts in order to prevent the Judge from taking up a matter. It is
respectfully submitted that the Chief Justice of India or any member
of the Collegium must not during the time he is the Chief Justice of
India or a member of the Collegium, allow any of his relatives to be
appointed as a Judge of the High Court. It is submitted that the
mere recusal of a Judge from such a meeting is completely inadequate
and is utterly unconvincing. Certain recent episodes have in fact lefd
to serious concerns amongst the members at the Bar.

30. It is important to bear in mind that Chief Justices of High Courts,
before they send recommendations, have often been seen as
consulting either the members of the Collegium or even the Judges
from that High Court who are in the Supreme Court in order to
enable names to be sent.

This practice must be completely

discontinued. Such informal interactions in the higher judiciary have
in fact undermined the character, the reserve and the strength, the
dispassion which is required in making judicial appointments.

 
  

  
  

22 
  

31. It is submitted that no Judge of the Supreme Court must in fact
accept an office after retirement. Similarly, no Judge of the High
Court or Chief Justice of the High Court should accept such office
after retirement. It is submitted that Parliament should make a law
by which the last drawn pay must be granted as a life pension for
such Judges. In order to see that the administration of justice is not
impaired by the absence of retired judicial personages, it would be
safer if those jurisdictions are vested in serving judicial personages.
Incidentally, it may be pointed out that the sinecure for retired Civil
Servants and retired Judges is indeed one of the most useful basket of
favours which any Executive Government has in its hand to ‘squint’
at the independence of the judiciary. It is not unknown that upon
the pronouncement of certain judgments in favour of political
leaders, Judges were amply rewarded immediately upon their
demitting office. It is also submitted that the practice of retired Chief
Justices and Judges giving opinions on matters which could be placed
before statutory and Government authorities to persuade them to
take a view must be prohibited. This kind of post retirement conduct
is destructive of the Independence of the Judiciary. It may be added
that no Judge shall join a political party after he demits office. In
fact, if he does so, it will be a serious impairment upon his
 
  

 23 
  

 
  

independence and would cast a sorry reflection on the way in which
he was a Judge. It is respectfully submitted that the Code of Conduct
of Judges must prevent retired Judges and Chief Justices from being
elected to the Rajya Sabha, the same is a completely unhealthy
precedent and must be stopped.

32. It is submitted that no Judge must accept any National honour such
as Padma Bhushan or Padma Vibhushan because it is expected that a
Judge performs his judicial functions not for the purpose of an
honour or recognition, but truly to be silent and true to the Office.

33. Interim Measure: It is also necessary to bear in mind that instead
of the Government actually having the final say in the matter of
appointment of the retired Judge who would be actually most
competent to fill up the position in a Tribunal, the Central
Government must seek the recommendations of the Collegium
about the most suitable Judges for such appointment (which is purely
an interim measure until recommendations in relation to life pension
as well as restoration of the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to the
Courts of Judicature are undertaken).

 
  

 24 
  

 
  

34. It is submitted that appointments of leading District Lawyers to the
High Court must also be encouraged. It is also necessary to bear in
mind that the District Judiciary must not be viewed any longer as
subordinate judiciary. Many instances of abuse of authority by
Administrative Judges of the High Court in relation to such District
Judges has come to the notice of this writer. It is necessary that there
should be a judicial order by which all administrative Judges, their
families including wives, sons, daughters, grandchildren, nieces,
nephews must be prohibited from seeking any hospitality and/or
material favours from any Judges of the lower judiciary.

35. It is submitted that the provision of a car to the District Judge must
be made out of the funds which are allocated to the District Court.
The District Judge must be prohibited from asking the Collector or
any officer of the Executive Branch of the State to make available
such facilities. In fact, it is the inability’ of district Judges to provide
‘proper welcome’ to administrative Judges because of which, very
often, District Judges have paid a price. It is necessary to bear in
mind that the work of District Judges must be appreciated objectively
and carefully.

 
  

 25 
  

 
  

36. It is important to bear in mind the ‘uncle-son’/'uncle judge'
syndrome which has been referred to and has caused consternation
amongst the younger members of the Bar need to be addressed. The
younger sections of the Bar are vibrant, full of energy, dynamism, yet
impatient because they clearly see what is wrong. It is important to
bear in mind that the promotion of sons by other Judges while their
sons are promoted by Judges in other Courts is a pernicious practice.
It is should be stopped forthwith. Thus, it is necessary to transfer all
Judges in India whose relatives are practicing in that particular High
Court.

37. As far as division of Courts and expertise of Judges is concerned, to
suggest that it should be based upon region and the branch of cases
dealt with by the High Court is a fallacious argument.

It is

respectfully submitted that merely because High Courts in the North
East do not deal with very many heavy commercial litigations does
not mean that Judges in the North East cannot be outstanding while
dealing with commercial matters. This is a only matter of perception.
However, it is important to bear one caveat in mind. Those Judges
who do not know criminal law or have not practiced criminal law,
should not attempt to write judgments in a field where the tendency
 
  

 26 
  

 
  

to err will be very high and if wrongful convictions including
sentences or life or death take place, the consequences would be
unimaginable. Therefore, it is necessary to bear in mind that before a
Judge is allowed to write judgments in matters of criminal law, he
should have at least an adequate experience and training sitting with a
senior Judge of that High Court who is completely familiar with the
subject, knows the actions of investigation and prosecution, as well as
other relevant matters.

38. It is respectfully submitted that the talk of globalisation, foreign
institutional investors, praising economic policies of incumbent
Government by Judges has led to very serious breaches of judicial
propriety. It is humbly and respectfully submitted that Judges must
be careful not to comment upon the merits or demerits of such
policies. To speak on subjects without adequate understanding of
them can often be a very serious breach of judicial sobriety and
objectivity.

 
  

 27 
  

 
  

ANNEXURE

1.

That for the purposes of the above two rules, the word relative
may be defined as any of the following1:1. Father (including step-father).
2. Father's brother
3. Father's brother's wife
4. Father's brother's son
5. Father's brother's daughter
6. Father's brother's son's wife
7. Father's brother's daughter's husband
8. Father's brother's son's chid
9. Father's brother's daughter's child
10. Father's sister

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
1

This definition is based primarily on the definition contained in s. 6 of the Companies
Act, 1956. However, it has been modified in keeping with the particular requirements of
the judiciary and some of the criticisms that have been made.
A possible alternative to this definition is to define relatives in terms of the definition of
sapindas contained in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, prima facie, it seems that this
definition might be a little too broad for this particular context.
A narrow definition is also contained in s. 2(41) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but perhaps
the definition confined to purely lineal descendants and ascendants is not suitable to the
context of legal practice in India, where it is common for entire families to be involved in
the profession of law and maintain close familial ties with each other.
A somewhat broader definition is also contained in s. 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and
it is submitted that this definition is fairly similar to the definition under Section 6 of the
Companies Act, 1956 and as such is another possible basis for the present definition.
 
  

 28 
  

 
  

11. Father's sister's husband
12. Father's sister's son
13. Father's sister's daughter
14. Father's sister's son's wife
15. Father's sister's daughter's husband
16. Father's sister's son's chid
17. Father's sister's daughter's child
18. Mother (including step-mother).
19. Mother's brother
20.Mother's brother's wife
21. Mother's brother's son
22.Mother's brother's daughter
23.Mother's brother's son's wife
24.Mother's brother's daughter's husband
25.Mother's brother's son's chid
26.Mother's brother's daughter's child
27.Mother's sister
28.Mother's sister's husband
29.Mother's sister's son
30.Mother's sister's daughter
31. Mother's sister's son's wife
 
  

 29 
  

 
  

32.Mother's sister's daughter's husband
33.Mother's sister's son's chid
34.Mother's sister's daughter's child
35.Son (including step-son).
36.Son's wife.
37.Son's son.
38.Son's son's wife.
39.Son's daughter.
40.Son's daughter's husband.
41. Daughter (including step-daughter).
42.Daughter's husband.
43.Daughter's son.
44.Daughter's son's wife.
45.Daughter's daughter.
46.Daughter's daughter's husband.
47.Brother (including step-brothers).
48.Brother's wife.
49.Brother's son
50.Brother's son's wife
51. Brother's daughter
52.Brother's daughter's husband
 
  

 30 
  

 
  

53.Sister (including step-sister).
54.Sister's husband.
55.Sister's son
56.Sister's son's wife
57.Sister's daughter
58.Sister's daughter'shusband