Jharkhand High Court: While considering a petition seeking financial aid to the State Bar Council (SBC), medical insurance coverage for advocates and their dependents, and life insurance for regular practitioners, the Division Bench of M.S. Sonak, CJ., and Rajesh Shankar, J., noted that the State had undertaken to provide health insurance to registered advocates with annual premium allocations. In view of this undertaking, the Court accepted the affidavit as binding on the State and accordingly disposed of the petition without any order as to costs.
Also Read: Jharkhand HC stays investigation in minor road accident, safeguards advocate from coercive action
Background
The dispute arose from a petition filed by a practising advocate seeking directions for financial aid, medical insurance coverage, and life insurance benefits. The State of Jharkhand filed a supplementary counter-affidavit through its Health Department, stating that a resolution dated 18 September 2024 had allocated funds under the “non-salary head” for the Jharkhand Advocates’ Welfare Trustee Committee. A resolution dated 24 January 2025 provided that an annual premium of ₹6000 per registered advocate would be paid, with updated premium amounts communicated periodically.
The petitioner and SBC contended that the resolution should be published in the Official Gazette to avoid bureaucratic objections.
However, the State submitted that the affidavit was clear and that there would be no difficulty in implementing the policy even without gazette publication.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that it accepted the statements made in the affidavit filed by the Executive Director of the Jharkhand State Arogya Society, Government of Jharkhand, as an undertaking on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. Similarly, the Court also accepted the State’s contention that there would be no difficulty in implementing the policy simply because it has not been published in the Official Gazette to date.
Considering the statements made in the affidavit filed by the Executive Director of the Jharkhand State Arogya Society, Government of Jharkhand, and the submissions made on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, the Court is satisfied that the reliefs prayed for in the petition stand substantially worked out.
It is further noted that if there is any real necessity for gazette publication, the Court is sure that the State would ensure such publication, if such publication has not already been made, within a reasonable period.
Consequently, in any event, without going into the issue of gazette publication, the Court has already recorded the State’s submission that there would be no difficulty in implementing the policy on the grounds of non-publication of the resolution in the Official Gazette.
Also Read: DHCBA condemns “inhuman & brutal” manhandling of advocate by Gurugram police
Decision
Since the reliefs in this petition stand substantially worked out, the Court thus disposed of the petition without any order as to costs.
[Bidesh Kumar Dan v. Union of India, W.P.(PIL) No. 1956 of 2021, decided on 8-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Md Shadab Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Radha Krishan Gupta, CGC, Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II, Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate, Karbir, Advocate, Manoj Tandon, Advocate, Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate, Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate
