In a landmark ruling, the Madras High Court has tackled the crucial issue of senior lawyers not paying their junior counterparts, labeling this practice as exploitation and a violation of fundamental rights. Delivered on June 3, 2024, by Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan in the case of Farida Begam v. The Puducherry Government (W.P. No. 17976 of 2019), the judgment addresses significant concerns within the legal profession.
Case Background
Farida Begam, the petitioner, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the enforcement of The Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001, in Puducherry. She also demanded compensation of Rs. 25,00,000. The respondents included various officials from Puducherry and Tamil Nadu, along with several bar associations.
Legal Issues
1. Implementation of Welfare Fund: The key issue was the lack of implementation of The Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001, in Puducherry, depriving lawyers of their due benefits.
2. Non-payment of Junior Lawyers: During the proceedings, the court also addressed the widespread issue of senior lawyers not compensating junior lawyers for their work.
Court's Decision
The court's observations and directives were both critical and far-reaching:
1. Uniform Welfare Fund Implementation: The court stressed that lawyers practicing in Puducherry, also enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, should receive equal benefits under the welfare scheme. Discrimination in benefits was deemed unacceptable.
2. Pending Applications: With around 200 pending applications for the Tamil Nadu Advocate's Welfare Fund, the court directed the government to release the necessary funds promptly.
3. Exploitation of Junior Lawyers: The court condemned the non-payment of junior lawyers, calling it exploitation and a breach of their fundamental rights. The judgment declared, "Extracting work without payment is an exploitation and directly in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution."
4. Role of Bar Council: Emphasizing the responsibilities of the State Bar Councils under Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the court urged the Bar Council to ensure that junior lawyers receive a minimum stipend from those engaging their services.
5. Guideline Directive: The court instructed the Bar Council to develop guidelines guaranteeing minimum stipend payments to junior lawyers, thereby safeguarding their livelihood and fostering their professional development.
This ruling by the Madras High Court stands as a significant step toward protecting the rights of junior lawyers and ensuring fair practices within the legal community. By addressing both the implementation of welfare funds and the exploitation of junior lawyers, the court has paved the way for more equitable and just treatment of all members of the legal profession.
To get free legal advice:https://www.advotalks.com/
For More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
