Consider Granting One-Time Ex Gratia Amount To State Bar Council To Setup Welfare Scheme For Needy Advocates: Ut’khand HC To State Govt

The bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal passed this order on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to the Union of India, Bar Council of India, State of Uttarakhand, and the Bar Council of Uttarakhand to implement various welfare schemes as per the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001, Advocates Act, 1961 and the U.P. Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1974.

The Counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Section 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the State Bar Councils have to promote the growth of State Bar Associations for the purposes of effective implementation of the welfare schemes referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of the said Section, and clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 7.

It was further submitted Section 6(2)(a) reads that a State Bar Council may constitute one, or more funds in the prescribed manner for the purpose of giving financial assistance to organise welfare schemes for the indigent, disabled or other advocates.

It was also apprised to the bench that the State of Kerala has formulated a scheme for providing financial assistance, by way of a stipend, to lawyers, who have been in practice for 3 to 5 years. A similar law has also been framed by the Government of Puducherry.

Filing a counter affidavit in the matter, the Bar Council of Uttarakhand expressed its inability to set up a fund as it informed the bench that it is not in receipt of any grant of whatsoever nature from the State Government.

It was also apprised to the bench that the only source of revenue for the State Bar Council is the charge (one time) collected by it at the time of enrolment of an Advocate and no recurring, or periodical fee is available to the Bar Council from the Advocates enrolled on its roll.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court noted that merely because such schemes have been framed by other States and Union Territories, it does not follow that the petitioner has a vested right to seek the creation of a similar scheme in the State of Uttarakhand, especially when the Bar Council of Uttarakhand has expressed its inability, in the light of its finances.

Accordingly, the Court declined to issue any directions, as sought by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

However, at the same time, the Court appealed to the State Government to look into the issue of financial hardship, which young Advocates face.

The Court stressed that advocates, who practice law in Courts, are the protectors of the fundamental and legal rights of citizens, the Court made the following remarks:

“To maintain the rule of law in the State, a healthy Bar, with competent Advocates, is essential. It should not be that a competent Advocate falls by the wayside, and leaves the profession only on account of him/ her not being able to make both ends meet in his/ her earlier days in the profession,” the Court added.

Lastly, the Court asked the state government to consider providing a one-time ex gratia amount to the Bar Council of Uttarakhand, so that it can run a welfare scheme for the welfare of young and needy Advocates.

With this, the Writ Petition was disposed of.

Case title - Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari vs. Union Of India And Others

Case Citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order