Seniors Extracting Work From Junior Lawyers Without Pay Violates Fundamental Rights: Madras HC Suggests Bar Council To Fix Minimum Stipend

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that often, young lawyers were unable to survive due to meager payments from their senior lawyers. The court added that senior lawyers who extracted work from junior lawyers without paying them a minimum stipend were in fact exploiting the young lawyers and directly violating their fundamental rights, which the court could not allow.

“Extracting work without payment is an exploitation and directly in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution. 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.

The court added that one of the functions of the State Bar Council was to safeguard the rights, privileges, interest, and livelihoods of the advocates who have enrolled with great ambitions. The court observed that it could not permit the exploitation of young lawyers in any circumstance and thus directed the state to fix the minimum stipend.

The court was hearing a plea seeking implementation and enforcement of The Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001 to Puducherry Union. During the hearing, the court was informed that about 200 applications were pending for benefits under the Tamil Nadu Advocate's Welfare Fund.

Considering the pendency of the applications, the court suo motu impleaded the Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, and the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department and asked them to explain why funds were not released for the applications pending since a long time.

With respect to Puducherry, the court observed that the lawyers practicing in Puducherry were also advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and as such there could not be any discrimination amongst the members of the bar. The court added that uniformity had to be maintained to redress the grievances of lawyers, who were practicing in Puducherry.

The court thus directed the Additional Government Pleader to place all the facts before the Government and secure necessary instructions on extending the financial contribution enabling the Bar Council to conduct the welfare scheme as per law.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.C.Elangovan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.A.Tamilvanan Additional Government Pleader, Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 235

Case Title: Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government

Case No: W.P.No.17976 of 2019