Madras High Court: Senior Lawyers Not Paying Juniors is Exploitation and Violates Fundamental Rights

by News

The Madras High Court recently addressed the issue of senior lawyers not paying junior lawyers, calling it a form of exploitation that violates fundamental rights. This decision came from a bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan, who emphasized that the practice of not paying junior lawyers even a minimum stipend is unfair and exploitative. The court pointed out that young lawyers, despite their talent and hard work, struggle to make a living because senior lawyers do not compensate them adequately.

The bench referred to Section 6 of the Advocates Act of 1961, which mandates that Bar Councils must ensure the welfare of all lawyers registered with them. The court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to come up with guidelines to set a minimum amount that must be paid to junior lawyers by their seniors. The court insisted that it is the responsibility of the Bar Council to protect the interests of junior lawyers and ensure their livelihood.

This issue was highlighted during the hearing of a petition by Farida Begum, who raised concerns about the delay in processing around 200 applications for benefits under the Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Welfare Fund. Advocate CK Chandrasekar, representing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, explained that the payments were delayed because the Tamil Nadu government had not yet released the necessary funds. Furthermore, he noted that the Welfare Scheme had not been approved by the Puducherry government, resulting in no benefits being disbursed to lawyers in Puducherry.

In response, the bench directed the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry governments to provide details on the number of lawyers eligible for the benefits, the funds allocated and released, and other relevant information. The court expressed concern over the practice of senior lawyers not paying juniors, stating that it is an unacceptable form of exploitation. The bench stressed that the Bar Council must take steps to ensure that junior lawyers receive a minimum stipend when they work for senior lawyers.

The court emphasized that extracting work from junior lawyers without paying them is a violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution. Young lawyers, who start their careers with hope and enthusiasm, must be supported by senior lawyers and the legal community to ensure their survival and growth in the profession. The court noted that it is essential to fix a minimum stipend to protect the livelihood of junior lawyers.

The Madras High Court’s decision underscores the importance of fair compensation for junior lawyers and the responsibility of senior lawyers and Bar Councils to support the welfare of all lawyers. This move aims to address the exploitation of junior lawyers and ensure that they are adequately compensated for their work, thereby upholding their fundamental rights and promoting a fair and just legal profession.

Advocate C Elangovan represented the petitioner Farida Begum in this case, while Additional Government Pleader A Tamilvanan appeared for the Puducherry government. Advocate CK Chandrasekar appeared for the TN Bar Council, and Advocate S John J Raja Singh represented the Tamil Nadu government. The court has asked the TN Bar Council to provide instructions on the issue by June 12.

Delhi Will Turn into a Barren Desert if Deforestation Continues, Warns Delhi High Court

by News

The Delhi High Court has raised serious concerns about Delhi’s future environment, warning that ongoing deforestation could turn the city into a barren desert. This warning came during discussions on setting up a committee to protect forests in Delhi. The committee, led by former judge Justice Najmi Waziri, was formed after a request from the high court on April 4.

In a hearing on May 31, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela mentioned that Delhi recently recorded a temperature of 52.9 degrees Celsius on May 30, 2024. However, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) later clarified that this high reading at Mungeshpur on May 29 was due to a sensor error.

Justice Gedela stressed the urgent need to address deforestation to stop Delhi from becoming a desert. The court reviewed a report by Justice Waziri, which highlighted the need for proper infrastructure to support the committee’s work. The chief conservator of forests informed the court that the necessary resources had been approved by the minister of the general administration department and were waiting for final approval from the cabinet and the Lieutenant Governor.

Advocate Gautam Narayan, acting as a friend of the court, emphasized the need to provide the required resources quickly. He warned against delays due to bureaucracy, stating that the needed infrastructure and other facilities should be provided without delay. Justice Gedela ordered that the approval process should not take longer than June 15 and that the infrastructure should be ready within 15 days after approval.

The court’s concerns highlight the urgent need for environmental protection in Delhi to combat rising temperatures and prevent severe ecological damage.

Rahul Gandhi Ordered to Appear in Court on June 7 in BJP Defamation Case

by News

A Bengaluru court has ordered Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to appear personally on June 7 in a defamation case filed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The case involves Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, and Rahul Gandhi. BJP leader Keshav Prasad filed the complaint, objecting to Congress advertisements during the 2023 Karnataka assembly elections. The ads accused the BJP, then in power, of demanding 40 percent commission or bribes from contractors for public works.

During a hearing on Saturday, Gandhi’s lawyer requested an exemption from his appearance, citing Gandhi’s participation in an INDIA alliance meeting. The court allowed the exemption for that day but insisted that Gandhi must appear on June 7. The court clearly stated, “It is made clear that the Accused No.4 shall appear before this court on the next date of hearing without fail.”

Earlier in the day, the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted bail to Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah and Deputy CM DK Shivakumar, requiring them to provide bail bonds of ₹5,000 each. Since Gandhi did not attend the hearing, his plea will be heard on June 7.

The BJP’s complaint argues that the Congress party’s advertisements spread false information targeting its members, including the then Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai. The BJP claims these ads unfairly accused their party of corruption, damaging their reputation.

In summary, the Bengaluru court has directed Rahul Gandhi to appear on June 7 in a defamation case related to Congress’s election campaign allegations against the BJP. While Gandhi’s request for exemption was accepted for now, the court has emphasized his required presence at the next hearing.

Delhi Court Denies Bail to Kejriwal’s Aide in Swati Maliwal Assault Case

by News

A Delhi court recently denied the bail plea of Bibhav Kumar, an aide to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, in a case involving the assault of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Swati Maliwal. Kumar was accused of assaulting Maliwal at the Chief Minister’s residence on May 13 and was placed in judicial custody on May 24.

The court rejected Kumar’s bail request, emphasizing that Maliwal’s allegations must be taken seriously and that there was a risk of Kumar influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court also mentioned that the delay in registering the FIR (First Information Report) did not significantly impact the case, as Maliwal’s injuries were documented in a medico-legal certificate four days after the incident. The court stated that if the incident were premeditated, the FIR would have been filed immediately.

Kumar plans to appeal the decision in the Delhi High Court. According to Maliwal’s allegations, while she was waiting to meet Kejriwal at his official residence, Kumar screamed at her, threatened her, used abusive language, and brutally assaulted her by dragging and banging her head on a table.

During the bail hearing, Kumar’s lawyer argued that the allegations were premeditated and false, meant to defame him because Maliwal believed he was responsible for her not meeting the Chief Minister. The lawyer also noted that Maliwal chose the location of the alleged assault because there were no CCTV cameras. In response, Maliwal broke down in court, claiming that AAP had deployed its resources to tarnish her image, holding press conferences against her, and labeling Kumar as abnormal.

The Delhi Police, in their report, described the incident as a serious case where the brutal assault could have been fatal. They accused Kumar of not cooperating with the investigation and being evasive in his responses. The police noted the severity of the case, as it involved the assault of a Member of Parliament, and highlighted Kumar’s lack of cooperation during questioning.

Recently, Kumar was taken to Mumbai to recover data from his phone, which he had allegedly formatted before his arrest. Police suspect that he transferred the data to someone or a device in Mumbai before wiping the phone. His phones, laptop, and CCTV recordings from Kejriwal’s house have been sent for forensic examination.

The National Commission for Women (NCW) also weighed in, claiming that Kumar was called to the Chief Minister’s residence after Maliwal arrived. The commission demanded details on who called him and called for an investigation into the call records of all involved parties, including the Chief Minister.

The AAP has dismissed Maliwal’s allegations, accusing her of being used by the BJP to defame Arvind Kejriwal ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. The party insists that Maliwal’s claims are politically motivated and intended to damage Kejriwal’s reputation.

In summary, Bibhav Kumar remains in custody as the court takes Maliwal’s allegations seriously, citing potential risks of witness tampering and evidence manipulation. The case has drawn significant attention, with both political and legal implications, as investigations continue and appeals are planned.

Consumer Forum Fines Britannia ₹60,000 for Underweight Biscuit Packets

by News

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thrissur, Kerala, has fined Britannia Industries and a bakery ₹60,000 for selling biscuit packets that weighed significantly less than the stated weight. The commission’s decision came after a complaint from a consumer named George Thattil, who found that the biscuit packets he purchased were 52 grams lighter than the claimed 300 grams.

George had bought two packets of “Britannia Nutri Choice Thin Arrow Root Biscuits” from Chukkiri Royal Bakery, each costing ₹40. The packaging claimed each packet weighed 300 grams, but George found that one packet weighed 268 grams and the other 248 grams. Suspecting foul play, George reported the issue to the Assistant Controller with the Flying Squad of Legal Metrology in Thrissur. Upon verification, the authorities confirmed that the packets were indeed underweight.

George then filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking compensation for the financial, physical, and mental distress he experienced due to the misleading packaging. He also requested an order to prevent such deceptive practices by manufacturers and sellers in the future.

The commission, consisting of President C.T. Sabu and members Sreeja S. and Ram Mohan R., noted that both Britannia and the bakery failed to respond to the notices sent to them. Consequently, the commission proceeded with the case ex-parte, meaning without the defendants’ participation. The commission found that both parties had engaged in unfair trade practices by selling underweight biscuit packets, which violated the Consumer Protection Act and Section 30 of the Legal Metrology Act 2009.

The commission emphasized that selling products with misleading weights not only cheats consumers financially but also violates their right to be free from exploitation and deception. The deceptive actions of the manufacturer and the seller were deemed serious enough to warrant strict penalties.

As a result, the commission ordered Britannia and the bakery to pay ₹50,000 in compensation to George for the distress and losses he suffered. Additionally, they were ordered to pay ₹10,000 to cover his litigation costs. The commission also directed the Controller of Legal Metrology in Kerala to conduct a state-wide investigation to ensure that all packaged commodities comply with net quantity regulations.

This ruling underscores the importance of manufacturers and sellers adhering to accurate labeling and packaging standards. Misleading consumers with incorrect weights or measures is a serious violation of consumer rights and can lead to significant penalties. The case also highlights the role of legal metrology authorities in verifying and enforcing compliance with these standards to protect consumer interests.

Advocate A.D. Benny represented George in this case, ensuring that his grievances were heard and addressed by the commission. The decision serves as a reminder to consumers to remain vigilant and report any discrepancies they encounter in product packaging to the relevant authorities. It also serves as a warning to businesses about the consequences of engaging in unfair trade practices.

Supreme Court Urges Senior Lawyers to Let Juniors Argue During Vacations

by News

The Supreme Court recently encouraged senior lawyers to let their junior colleagues argue cases during court vacations. This suggestion came from Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay Karol during a courtroom exchange with Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta.

Justice Karol emphasized that vacations are intended to give younger lawyers opportunities to grow. He urged senior lawyers to support this initiative by allowing juniors to take on more responsibilities during this time.

Dr. Singhvi supported the idea but stressed the need for uniform rules across all Supreme Court benches. He mentioned that consistent guidelines would make it easier for senior lawyers to follow the practice. Singhvi also noted that he has been advocating for such uniform rules for five years and urged the Justices to discuss and implement them collectively.

SG Mehta added that some vacation benches already do not permit Senior Advocates to argue, highlighting that some steps are being taken in this direction.

The Supreme Court’s call aims to foster the growth and development of younger lawyers by giving them more opportunities to argue cases, especially during court vacations.

Supreme Court Bar Association Result: Kapil Sibal Elected SCBA President

by News

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal was elected President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA)

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has been elected the new President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). In the election held on Thursday, Sibal secured 1,066 votes, defeating his closest rival, Senior Counsel Pradeep Rai, who received 689 votes.

This marks Sibal’s return to the role, having previously served as SCBA President in 2001-02 and twice before that, in 1995-96 and 1997-98. While the vote count for other candidates is still ongoing, Sibal has clearly taken the lead.

The results for the other candidates—Adish Aggarwala, Priya Hingorani, Neeraj Srivastava, and Tripurari Ray—are yet to be updated. Additionally, Advocate Rachana Srivastava was elected Vice President, securing 816 votes and narrowly defeating Sukumar Pattjoshi, who received 784 votes.

Six lawyers in race for President’s post: SCBA Elections

by News

In the upcoming elections for the c (SCBA), six lawyers are vying for the prestigious post of President, along with other key positions like Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer. The polls are scheduled for May 16.

The contenders for the President’s position are:

  • Adish C Aggarwala (currently serving as President)
  • Kapil Sibal
  • Priya Hingorani
  • Pradeep Kumar Rai
  • Neeraj Srivastava
  • Tripurari Ray

Kapil Sibal, a Senior Advocate, is making a comeback to the race after over two decades, having previously held the position in 2001-02, and twice before that in 1995-1996 and 1997-1998.

Priya Hingorani, also a Senior Advocate, has a history of breaking barriers, having been the youngest Vice President and the first female Secretary of the SCBA.

The incumbent President, Adish C Aggarwala, secured victory last year over Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave. Additionally, Pradeep Kumar Rai and Neeraj Srivastava have contested in previous elections.

The Supreme Court, in a recent order, mandated that at least one-third of the Executive Committee positions in the SCBA should be reserved for women. Thus, for this year’s elections, three executive member positions, two senior executive member positions, and the treasurer post will be filled by women.

The current Vice President is Sukumar Pattjoshi, and Yugandhara Pawar Jha holds the position of Treasurer.

The election promises to be a significant event in the legal community, shaping the leadership of the SCBA for the coming term.

[See list of SCBA candidates]

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal till 1 June

by News

The Supreme Court swiftly granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal until June 1, 2024. This decision follows Kejriwal’s arrest on March 21, 2024, by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy case. However, he is expected to return to judicial custody on June 2, just before the announcement of the 2024 Lok Sabha Election results.

Here’s a summary of the legal proceedings leading up to this decision:

Upon his arrest, Kejriwal contested the legality of his detention under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. His legal counsel, Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, argued that the arrest was unjustified due to inconsistencies in witness statements and raised concerns about the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, suggesting it was politically motivated.

Last week, the Supreme Court hinted at the possibility of granting interim bail, considering the imminent Delhi Lok Sabha Elections scheduled to commence on May 25, 2024.

During this week’s hearing, the Enforcement Directorate, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, argued against granting bail. They cited new evidence uncovered during the investigation and Kejriwal’s alleged non-cooperation, including his failure to respond to nine summonses over six months.

The court expressed apprehensions about the potential impact of granting bail on Kejriwal’s ability to fulfill his duties as Chief Minister.

Following today’s decision, Mehta expressed dissatisfaction, highlighting Kejriwal’s purported lack of cooperation with the investigation. However, Justice Sanjiv Khanna downplayed the significance of a few additional days of freedom, considering Kejriwal’s prolonged custody since March.

Yesterday, the Enforcement Directorate filed an affidavit opposing interim bail for Kejriwal, arguing against granting preferential treatment to a political leader during election campaigning. Kejriwal responded with a counter-affidavit, criticizing the timing of the Enforcement Directorate’s filing.

The Supreme Court is yet to specify any conditions for the interim bail, with a detailed order anticipated later today.

In essence, while Kejriwal has been granted interim bail until June 1, 2024, his return to judicial custody is expected before the announcement of the Lok Sabha Election results.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea to Ban PM Modi from Elections for 6-year

by News

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea requesting a six-year ban on Prime Minister Narendra Modi from participating in elections. The plea alleged that Modi violated the Model Code of Conduct by seeking votes on religious grounds for the upcoming Lok Sabha polls. Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the case, explained that the court couldn’t direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) on how to handle such matters.

The petitioner, Advocate Anand S Jondhale, pointed to a speech made by Modi in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, where he allegedly urged voters to support the BJP using religious appeals. Jondhale argued that such statements could incite religious discord, thereby violating the law.

However, the court found the plea flawed, stating that it presumed wrongdoing without adequate evidence. It reiterated that it couldn’t compel the ECI to take specific actions and that the ECI was responsible for independently assessing complaints.

The ECI assured that it would evaluate the petitioner’s representation according to legal procedures. Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing the ECI, noted that the commission regularly receives such complaints and handles them as per established protocols.

Jondhale’s petition also contended that Modi’s speech breached the Model Code of Conduct, which prohibits activities that could exacerbate differences or create tension between groups. The code also prohibits the use of religious sites for election campaigning.

Despite Jondhale’s efforts, the ECI had not acted on his complaint, leading him to seek recourse in the court. He asked the court to instruct the ECI to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Modi and disqualify him from contesting elections for six years.

However, the court reiterated its position that it couldn’t instruct the ECI on specific actions, emphasizing the commission’s independence in such matters.

In summary, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea seeking a ban on Modi from contesting elections, citing its lack of merit and its inability to dictate the actions of the Election Commission. The court underscored the importance of evidence and due process in such cases, emphasizing the need for impartiality and independence in electoral matters.