The Madras High Court recently stated that senior lawyers who fail to provide junior lawyers with a minimum stipend amount are committing acts of exploitation and violating the fundamental rights of the junior lawyers.
Judges SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan made an order on June 3 that told the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry to get instructions on how to set rules for a standard minimum amount that must be paid to every young lawyer working with a senior lawyer.
The Bench further observed that Section 6 of the Advocates Act of 1961 required Bar Councils to serve the welfare of every attorney enrolled under their name.
The Court held that as a result, the TN Bar Council must protect the interests of attorneys who are enrolled with it.
The High Court observed, “Further, it is brought to our notice that young brilliant lawyers after enrolling themselves as Advocates in Bar council of Tamil Nadu is unable to survive on account of the fact that the senior lawyers / lawyers engaging the services of the these junior lawyers, are not paying even the minimum stipend to meet out their livelihood. Extracting work without payment is an exploitation and directly in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution. The livelihood of these young brilliant lawyers, who have started their practice with a fond hope must be encouraged by the senior lawyers, legal fraternity and the Courts,” .
The Court noted these things in response to a petition filed by a woman named Farida Begum, who informed the Court that almost 200 petitions from attorneys requesting benefits from The Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Welfare Fund had been sitting on the court’s desk for months.
Advocate CK Chandraasekar, who represented the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, stated that the petitioners had not yet received payment because the Tamil Nadu government had not yet released the funds.
He further informed the court that no Puducherry lawyer had yet to get benefits since the Puducherry government had not yet approved the Welfare Scheme.
The Bench then ordered the Puducherry authorities and the Tamil Nadu government to reply to the appeal and provide information about the number of attorneys who qualified for benefits under the program, the amount of money that was allotted and distributed, etc.
The Bench continued by saying that it had seen that senior attorneys often did not give their juniors any money.
The Court declared that such a practice was improper.
The Court stated, “Exploitation at no circumstances can be permitted nor be appreciated. Therefore, it is the function of the Bar Council to ensure that the livelihood of these lawyers are protected by fixing minimum stipend to be paid in the event of engaging the services of the junior lawyers, who have enrolled,”.
By June 12 of 2024, the TN Bar Council was instructed to get guidance on the matter.
Farida Begum, the petitioner in the case, was represented by Advocate C Elangovan.
Additional Government Pleader A Tamilvanan for the Puducherry government.
For the TN Bar Council, attorney CK Chandrasekar made an appearance.
S John J Raja Singh, an advocate, represented the government of Tamil Nadu.