Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Inclusion Of Advocates As 'Professionals' In MSME Act

A three-judge Bench of CJI Bobde, Justice Bopanna and Justice Ramasubramanian issued the direction while hearing petitioner's challenge to the Delhi High Court order refusing to entertain petitioner PIL seeking inclusion of Advocates in definition of professionals under the MSME Development Act 2006.

During the hearing, Abhijit Mishra appeared as petitioner in person before the Court.

"Are you an Advocate?" - the Bench asked.

"I am a law student, about to become an Advocate. The MSME Act doesn't consider us as professional" - petitioner in person responded.

The Delhi High Court through its order dated 29th July 2020 had refused to entertain the plea as a Public Interest Litigation, and had observed that such public interest litigation for the benefit of a class of persons can be preferred if the affected persons are unable to access the courts, e.g. the poorest of the poor, illiterates, children, and other classes of people who may be handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy or lack of understanding of the law. The Court had observed that advocates are capable enough to approach the Court if aggrieved, and as and when any advocate would approach the Court, decision would be taken on merits in accordance with law, rules and regulations applicable to the facts of the case.

The petitioner in person before the Delhi High Court, had urged the Court to amend the arbitrary, biased and restrictive criteria of defining the "Professional" in order to include the Profession of Advocates for accessing the welfare schemes of the Government of India under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006.

The petitioner had also sought High Court's directions to the Department of Financial Services to develop banking products and schemes in consultation with Bar Council of India for the welfare of the Advocates, and directions to Reserve Bank of India to issue guidelines or instructions or notification to the banks to collateral free loans, credit facilities and schemes under aegis of section 20 of the MSMED Act 2006 in consultation with the Bar Council of India.

The petitioner had then filed a review petition before the Delhi High Court but the Court had dismissed it observing that there was no error apparent on the face of record in its order.

Click Hear To Download/Read Order