Case Law Details
Farida Begam Vs Puducherry Government (Madras High Court)
In the case of Farida Begam vs. Puducherry Government, heard at the Madras High Court, several critical issues regarding the welfare and rights of advocates practicing in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry were addressed.
The proceedings began with the acknowledgment that approximately 200 applications for benefits under The Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Welfare Fund were pending. Mr. C. K. Chandrasekar, representing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, highlighted the government’s responsibility to sanction and release funds allocated for these benefits. Conversely, the Government of Puducherry had not yet disbursed benefits to eligible lawyers under the scheme, prompting the Additional Government Pleader for Puducherry to request one week to obtain instructions on the matter.
A significant concern raised was the disparity between the treatment of lawyers in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry despite their enrollment in both Bar Councils. The court emphasized the need for uniformity in the disbursement of welfare benefits to prevent discrimination among members practicing in different regions.
Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the court decided to suo-motu implead the Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department, and the Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department as respondents. This step aimed to compel the Tamil Nadu government to address the backlog of pending applications and provide explanations for the delay in fund disbursement.
Another critical issue addressed was the plight of young lawyers who, despite enrolling with high hopes, struggled to sustain themselves due to the non-payment of stipends by senior lawyers or law firms that engaged their services. The court condemned this practice as a violation of fundamental rights and highlighted Section 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which mandates State Bar Councils to safeguard the rights, privileges, and interests of advocates on their roll. It stressed the responsibility of the Bar Councils to protect the livelihood of young lawyers by ensuring they receive a minimum stipend for their services.
In response to these concerns, the court directed the Bar Council to formulate guidelines mandating the payment of a minimum stipend to junior lawyers engaged by senior advocates or firms. This directive aimed not only to address the immediate financial distress faced by young lawyers but also to establish a precedent against exploitation within the legal profession.
The court’s actions underscored its commitment to upholding the rights and welfare of advocates, particularly those starting their careers. By intervening and issuing directives to both the government and the Bar Council, it sought to ensure that legal practitioners in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry received fair treatment and support as per established welfare schemes and legal provisions.
In conclusion, the case of Farida Begam vs. Puducherry Government before the Madras High Court exemplifies judicial activism in safeguarding the interests of advocates. Through its interventions, the court addressed delays in welfare fund disbursements and advocated for the fair treatment of young lawyers, thereby reinforcing the principles of equity and justice within the legal profession.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
It is brought to the notice of this Court that about 200 applications were submitted seeking benefits under The Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Welfare Fund are pending.
2. Mr. C. K. Chanrdasekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu would submit that the Government has to sanction and release the funds for the purpose of payment of fund to the eligible members under the Welfare Fund Scheme.
3. As far as the Government of Puducherry is concerned, the benefits are yet to be paid to the lawyers under the scheme and the Government has to take a decision. In this context, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Puducherry seeks one week time to get instructions.
4. It is needless to state that the lawyers practicing in Puducherry is also the Advocates enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and the legal practitioners in Puducherry Courts, 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 in order to redress the grievances of lawyers, who all are practicing in Puducherry also.
5. Thus, the learned Additional Government Pleader has 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.
6. Since, large number of applications are pending as far as of the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, we are inclined to suo-motu implead the Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 and Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 as respondents.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the suo-motu impleaded respondents and seeks time to secure instructions, why the funds are not released for the applications pending for long time.
8. The petitioner has to serve the copy of the papers to the learned Additional Government Pleader for Government of Tamil Nadu.
9. Further, it is brought to our notice that young brilliant lawyers after enrolling themselves as Advocates in Bar council of Tamil Nadu is unable to survive on account of the fact that the senior lawyers / lawyers engaging the services of the these junior lawyers, are not paying even the minimum stipend to meet out their livelihood.
10. 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.
11. In this context, Section 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961 denotes “Functions of the State Bar Councils”. Section 6(1)(d) stipulates “to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates on its roll”. Sub Clause (e) states that “to promote and support law reform”.
12. Safeguarding the rights, privilege and interest of the advocates is one of the function of the State Bar Council and therefore, the livelihood of these young lawyers, who have enrolled with great ambitions are also to be protected. In order to protect the livelihood of these young lawyers, Bar Council should ensure that minimum stipend is paid by the lawyers, who all are engaging the services of the young lawyers.
13. Exploitation at 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 are protected by fixing minimum stipend to be paid in the event of engaging the services of the junior lawyers, who have enrolled.
14. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council has to secure necessary instructions for framing guidelines / instructions for the advocates, who have enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
15. Post the matter on 12.06.2024.
Author Bio
Sir,
In our State of Andhra Pradesh, our beloved Ex-CM, Shri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, during his tenure, has already commenced to provide this sort of monthly financial assistance to the extent of Rs.5,000, to those Law Graduates, who have enlisted at the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. Of course, the vision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras shall be most appreciable as it meant to help the Junior Advocates from probable exploitation.