'You're In Black Coat Doesn't Mean Your Life Is More Precious' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Compensation To Kin Of Lawyers Who Died Of COVID

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation which sought for ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs  to kin of an advocate who has died within 60 years of age due to CoVID or in any other manner.

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna termed the PIL bogus and warned the petitioner, Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav, of costs.

"If you are in black coat, doesn't mean your life is more precious", Justice Chandrachud said.

"It won't happen that lawyers file a PIL and demand for compensation from judges and that they will allow. A lot of people died. You can't be an exception", Justice Chandrachud added.

Faced with adverse comments from the bench, the petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the petition.

However, the bench refused. The bench pointed out that the Supreme Court has already given a judgment on compensation for COVID edaths.

"Mr.Yadav, we'll have to impose cost on you. If we see your grounds, there isn't even one ground which is relevant. App agar cut paste kar denge toh aisa nahi hota ki judges padhenge nahi (If you copy paste your ground, that won't mean that the judges won't read it)", Justice Chandrachud remarked during the hearing.

"We'll have to stop the lawyers from filing these bogus PIL's. This is a Publicity Interest Litigation", the judge remarked. The bench dismissed the petition with Rupees 10,000 costs.

The petition had sought the following relief primarily :

"Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent/s to pay ex-gratia amount about Rs. 50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lacs) to the kin of the deceased advocate, who had died within 60 years whether by covid-19 or any other manner, in cases of pandemic additional monetary help be provided to 19 advocates, because the survival of the advocate is only on cases/briefs and advocate have no other source of income with immediate effect."

Case : Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. Union of India, WP(c) 706/2021.

Click Here To Read/ Download Order