Supreme Court Asks Bar Clerk’s Association to Withdraw Plea

Must Read

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...

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...

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...

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...

Follow us

The Supreme Court received a writ petition. The Petitioner claimed there was a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 confers ‘Right to Life and Personal Liberty’.

Facts of the Case 

This Petition is on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar Clerk’s Association before the Apex Court. The Petition sought directions for the Centre to pay ₹15,000 monthly to every member. 

The pandemic has brought a financial crisis along for everyone. The Petition is a way to deal with the financial ramifications of COVID-19. 

The Association stated that members had not gotten their basic salaries in months. Further, it also claimed violation of Right to Life under Article 21. 

Petitioner’s submission 

The Petitioner submitted

“Most of the clerks are on the verge of penury having absolutely no money to even look after basic facilities, likely the health and education of children and even arranging food for their family members. Thus, there is a grave violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution because of the action/inaction of the Respondents (Centre and State Governments) where no alternative has been provided to the persons like the members of the Petitioner Association.”

Further, the Petitioner submitted 

“The Union had announced a 20 crore financial aid pack in May, which covers small scale industries, migrant workers and other financially distressed groups of persons. However, no such scheme has been formulated for the members of the Petitioner Association and other similarly placed persons, in the profession of “Clerk”, which is prevalent all over India. These members are an integral and indispensable part of our legal system, and their survival must be given utmost importance.”

The Petitioner stated that despite believing that things will improve, nothing changed. Even now, there is not much work. Moreover, it is vague about when the situation will be back to normal. 

The Petitioner complained that the Government had not taken any action on the issue. 

Court’s Observation

Justices Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul and MR Shah, heard the matter. 

“How can the Centre pay for them? Tomorrow anyone will come and ask for payments from the Centre” – the Bench stated. 

“Please do not encourage them to take up litigation”, Justice Kaul added. The Petitioner requested to represent the matter before the Bar Council of India.

“How can the Bar Council take it up?” – stated Justice Bhushan. 

The Bench urged the Petitioner to withdraw the Plea without granting any liberty. 

Court’s Decision 

The Hon’ble Court refused to entertain the Plea. The Bench directed the Petitioner to withdraw the Plea. 


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.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

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...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -