Plea For Grant Of Medical Term Insurance Under CM Advocates Welfare Fund Before Delhi High Court

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

The Bar Council of Delhi has filed a writ petition for mandamus through its Chairman KC Mittal. It was under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petition seeks to direct the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to grant medical and term insurance policies to the Advocates finalized by the Government of Delhi and registered under the Chief Minister’s Advocate Welfare Scheme. 

Brief Facts of the Case 

The petitioner mentioned that the Cabinet in 2019 had decided to provide benefits to the Advocates under CM Advocates Welfare Scheme. The Advocates should have registered themselves under the Bar Council of Delhi. They have their names on the voters’ list to avail benefits. The benefits included Medical insurance and Term insurance of 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs. A committee had been set up to enforce this decision. But this scheme was not implemented due to an undue delay until 2020. 

From 20th March 2020, the registrations were open up to 31st March 2020. The Prime Minister had imposed a complete lockdown due to the COVID-19 crisis. The Registrations began at the same time and the Respondent’s server had been down too. Thus, several advocates were unable to log in. On request, the duration for registration was extended up to 19th April 2020. The issues were not resolved and 1 and ½ months had elapsed, but the benefits were not granted. Thus, the petitioner filed a writ of mandamus before the HC of Delhi to seek a direction to the Delhi Government. 

Contentions before the Court 

The petitioner claimed that the government failed to provide benefits through the scheme. The respondents had failed to resolve the technical issues despite several reminders. This issue had continued to exist during the lockdown up to the extended date of 19.04.2020. The respondents did not accept the request for extension up to 30.04.2020. This was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  

Respondent No. 1 had deprived the advocates entitled to the benefits and denied them opportunities. It was due to no fault of theirs, but due to the failure of Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner mentions that the legal fraternity had appreciated the budgetary allocation. The inaction and delay had caused serious prejudice. It deprived them of insurance during COVID-19. 

“That more than 1 and ½ months has elapsed, but the schemes have not been implemented so far, despite registration of various advocates, leaving aside those who could not register due to inefficiency of Respondent No. 1. It may be pertinent to point out that those insurance policies as promised are necessary to provide treatment to lawyers, particularly during Covid-19.” 

The petitioner claims to have filed this petition to safeguard the interest of the legal fraternity. The Delhi Government had assured the Bar Council of Delhi that steps were being taken by the Government about the Chief Minister’s Welfare Scheme, during the hearing of the plea.

This writ petition was in relation to an identical writ petition titled- Govind Swaroop Chaturvedi v. State of NCT of Delhi & others.

Held

A Single Judge Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Pratibha M. Singh had been set up. Before this petition, the HC of Delhi issued a notice to the Government. It asked to extend the last date of registration considering the lockdown. The Bench allowed the Government to place the concerned documents on record. This showed the steps taken by the Government to put in place the Chief Minister’s Advocates Welfare Scheme.  

The Bench has stated that the next hearing would be on the 18th of June 2020.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -