Madras High Court: In a writ petition concerning the Welfare Schemes and the safeguards to be provided to the Advocates enrolled in the State Roll and practicing in various Courts across the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, the division bench of S.M. Subramaniam* and C. Kumarappan, JJ., has issued the following directions:
-
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Government of Puducherry and recognised Associations at Pondicherry and Karaikkal were directed to co-ordinate and finalise the proposal for amendment of Schedule-I to enhance the Welfare Fund Scheme amount submitted by the Trust Committee as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry were directed to issue Guidelines/Instructions/Circulars to all the Advocates/Senior Advocates in the State rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry the following directions:
-
Any Advocate/Senior Advocate employing the services of Junior Advocates shall pay a minimum stipend of Rs.20,000/- per month for Advocate practising in the major cities of Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai.
-
Any Advocate/Senior Advocate employing the services of Junior Advocate shall pay a minimum stipend of Rs.15,000/- per month for Advocates practising in other areas across the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
-
-
Bringing to the fore the issue of pay disparity based on gender, the Court directed that the minimum stipend fixed above shall be extended to all Junior Lawyers without any kind of discrimination based on Gender.
-
The Court also directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to respond in respect of the settlement of welfare fund amount to the eligible members in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Considering the issue relating to safeguarding of the livelihood of Junior Advocates employed by the Advocates / Senior Advocates, the Court took note of Section 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which enumerates functions of a State Bar Council. The Court noted that Section 6(1)(d) stipulates that the rights, privileges and interest of the Advocates on its roll to be safeguarded by the State Bar Councils.
Noting that earlier that access to professional courses like Law was reserved only for the people with privileged backgrounds. But today, the Constitutional ideals played a pivotal role in creating a pathway to all young graduates to come from multi-cultural, multi-social, multi-economic and diverse backgrounds, the Court showed concern about the livelihood of the Junior Lawyers, who are coming from marginalised section, and from rural areas to the city to practice law.
The Court remarked that young lawyers today face numerous challenges and that their enthusiasm should not be stifled solely because of economic factors. It further added that many youngsters are forced to quit their profession due to economic instability in the profession.
The Court said that safeguarding of rights, privileges and interest of the Advocates being one of the functions of the Bar Council, it is duty bound to ensure that the Junior Lawyers, who all are entering into legal profession with great ambition are encouraged and their livelihood is protected.
The Court said that Lawyers as a community have emerged as the biggest change makers and as the forerunners of change in our Country, we must lead the change we want to be.
The Court while noting that a common idea that has been doing rounds in legal circles that economic instability and sufferings as a Junior Lawyer is a part and parcel of this profession and that the Juniors ‘must get used to it’, said that “this is wholly unacceptable and demeaning. There is no need for the young Lawyers to get used to anything. Rather, we must ensure that a safe and all conducive atmosphere be provided for their learning and growth in the profession.”
The Court noted that welfare schemes have been introduced by the Government to provide aid and assistance to Junior Lawyers. A monthly stipend of a minimum amount is provided to support the Lawyers. But without venturing into the Welfare Schemes, and with the vision to create an inbuilt system to support Juniors by providing them with support systems to thrive on, the Court opined that by providing them with an adequate monthly stipend in return for their services, will definitely serve as a catalyst for their development.
[Farida begum v. Puducherry Government, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 2113, Order dated 12-06-2024]
