Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed for directing the Puducherry Government to implement and enforce the Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001 to Puducherry Union Territory in accordance with Puducherry LA GAZETTE DE L’ ETAT vide in Government Order dated 02-07-2008; and to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the petitioner with costs, the division bench of S.M. Subramaniam and C.Kumarappan, JJ., has said that the lawyers practicing in Puducherry are also the Advocates enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. They are the legal practitioners in Puducherry Courts and are therefore eligible to avail the benefits under the welfare Scheme. Further, the Court directed the Additional Government Pleader to place all the facts before the Government and secure necessary instructions to extend financial contribution enabling the Bar Council to conduct the Welfare Scheme in accordance with the terms of the scheme.
The Court noted that about 200 applications were submitted seeking benefits under The Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Welfare Fund are pending.”
The Court said that the lawyers practicing in Puducherry are also the Advocates enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. They are the legal practitioners in Puducherry Courts and are therefore eligible to avail the benefits under the welfare Scheme. There cannot be any discrimination amongst the members in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Uniformity is to be maintained in this regard to redress the grievances of lawyers, who are all practicing in Puducherry also.
Thus, the Court directed the Additional Government Pleader to place all the facts before the Government and secure necessary instructions to extend financial contribution enabling the Bar Council to conduct the Welfare Scheme in accordance with the terms of the scheme.
Since, large number of applications are pending as far as of the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the Court suo-motu impleaded the Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department, and Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, as respondents.
The Court granted Additional Government Pleader time to secure instructions as to why the funds are not released for the applications pending for long time.
The Court noted that young brilliant lawyers after enrolling themselves as Advocates in Bar council of Tamil Nadu is unable to survive because the senior lawyers / lawyers engaging the services of these junior lawyers, are not paying even the minimum stipend to meet out their livelihood.
The Court said that extracting work without payment is an exploitation and directly in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution.
Further, the Bench remarked that “the livelihood of these young brilliant lawyers, who have started their practice with a fond hope must be encouraged by the senior lawyers, legal fraternity and the Courts”.
The Court said that safeguarding the rights, privilege and interest of the advocates is one of the functions of the State Bar Council and therefore, the livelihood of these young lawyers, who have enrolled with great ambitions, are also to be protected.
The Court also said that to protect the livelihood of these young lawyers, the Bar Council should ensure that minimum stipend is paid by the lawyers, who all are engaging the services of the young lawyers.
The Court further stated that exploitation under no circumstances can be permitted nor be appreciated. Therefore, it is the function of the Bar Council to ensure that the livelihood of these lawyers is protected by fixing minimum stipend to be paid in the event of engaging the services of the junior lawyers, who have enrolled.
Therefore, the Court directed the Counsel of Bar Council to secure necessary instructions for framing guidelines / instructions for the advocates, who have enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The matter will next be taken up on 12-06-2024
[Farida Begam v. Puducherry Government, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 1787, Order dated 03-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate C.Elangovan
For Respondent: Additional Government Pleader A.Tamilvanan, Advocate C.K.Chandrasekar, Advocate S.John J.Raja Sing
Buy Constitution of India HERE
