Delhi HC: There cannot be a hard and fast rule that in a welfare scheme, Courts cannot interfere, even if they are violative of the rights of a section of the citizens

 

On 12^th July, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Pratibha M. Singh, while hearing a petition questioning the grounds on which certain welfare schemes has been implemented by the government for the benefit advocates whose names appear in the voters list of Delhi held that almost all decisions of governments taken as executive decisions would involve policy matters. Such decisions, as per the settled law would be amenable to judicial review, if it is seen that the same is either discriminatory or arbitrary. The bench further held that there cannot be a hard and fast rule that in a welfare scheme, Courts cannot interfere, even if they are violative of the rights of a section of the citizens.

Facts of the case:

The Chief Minister’s Advocates Welfare Scheme (hereinafter, ‘Scheme’) for advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘BCD’), was approved and launched in 2019 in recognition of the contribution of lawyers and advocates.  An outlay of Rs. 50 crore, an annual fund, had been made under the said scheme for utilization for the welfare of the legal community, in the Budget of 2019-20. It was mentioned that the benefit of the same would only be available to such advocates whose names appear in the voters list of Delhi. However, large number of advocates who are enrolled with the BCD and practising in various District Courts, the High Court, the Supreme Court and other fora, had been excluded due to this condition, as they are not residents of Delhi. The second issue concerns those lawyers who were unable to register for the Scheme within the original deadline and are thus seeking extension of the deadline for registration.

As a background of the scheme the GNCTD decided to recognise the role of advocates an annual outlay of Rs.50 crores was created for the year 2019-20 for the said purpose. A total of 40,115 advocates were considered by the Committee, to be beneficiaries, which included advocates from the NCR region/neighbouring areas. In addition, the facility of an e-library was also recommended as per which District Court complexes would be provided ten computers with all the e-journals along with heavy duty printers.

Contention of the Petitioners:

 

The petitioners made the following contentions:

1. It was submitted that the advocates from the NCR region/neighbouring areas, who are practicing in Delhi, also contribute to the dispensation of justice in Delhi and thus the eligibility criteria of insisting on a voter ID card is completely violative and discriminatory, inasmuch as the purpose of the Scheme is to give recognition and benefit to advocates, who are practicing in Delhi.
2. It was also argued that the present case is not only a case of discrimination, it also relates to the right to live inasmuch as the insurance is a form of social security and the same is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Reference was also made to the budget speech given at the time when the Scheme was announced to argue that the same was meant to be a welfare measure for advocates practising in Delhi and that neither the budget speech nor the Scheme mentions residence as being important in any manner whatsoever.
4. It was further submited that it was publicly declared by the Chief Minister of GNCTD that the outlay of Rs.50 crores is not the maximum amount and in fact, public functions have been addressed where it was made clear that even if the amount is increased, advocates should be provided the medi-claim and the life insurance.
5. It was also submitted that the lawyers practising in Delhi, who could not register and had to go back to their home town, ought to be given liberty to register for availing of the benefit of the scheme.

Contention of the Respondent:

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted the following contention:

 

1. There is no statutory duty which exists upon the GNCTD and hence, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. Thus, the writ itself is not maintainable.
2. The question as to which category of lawyers is eligible for benefits under the Scheme is an issue of policy in which the intervention of Court would be very limited. The manner in which the Rs. 50 crores is to be utilised would also be a question of policy.
3. It was also argued that the approval of a sum of Rs.50 crores as the maximum amount to be spent on the Scheme. Within the said amount, the Government had the discretion to expand it in whatever manner it sought appropriate for the welfare of advocates.
4. It was submitted that the manner in which the said amount was to be extended is again, a question of policy. There is no obligation of any nature on the GNCTD to extend this policy. The scheme is an ex-gratia scheme meant for the benefit of a particular class of citizens. Accordingly, it was argued that the arguments of the Petitioner that the scheme should be extended to advocates from the NCR region/neighbouring areas is without any basis and the policy ought not to be interfered with in any manner.
5. It was also argued that the object of the scheme is paramount i.e., it intends to extend benefits to advocates who are enrolled with the BCD and who are residents of Delhi.

Observation and judgement of the court:

The Hon’ble bench of the court made the following observation:

1. Almost all decisions of governments taken as executive decisions would involve policy matters. Such decisions, as per the settled law would be amenable to judicial review, if it is seen that the same is either discriminatory or arbitrary.
2. Irrespective of the manner in which the funds would be raised by the BCD, the deficit on an annual basis shall be contributed by the BCD to the GNCTD to enable it to provide insurance under the Scheme to advocates.
3. Both the GNCTD and the BCD shall appoint Nodal Officers to coordinate with each other so as to streamline the implementation of the Scheme.

In the light of the above the court held that for the current year’s policies, all advocates who had registered themselves and are eligible for the benefits under the Scheme shall be extended the benefits. It was also held that the condition in the Scheme that it would be applicable only to residents in Delhi with Voter IDs, is discriminatory and arbitrary. Accordingly, the Scheme shall be extended to all advocates registered with the Bar Council of Delhi, whose names and credentials are verified, without insistence of Voter ID showing residence in Delhi. 

 The writ petitions were thus disposed off. 

 

 

 

 

 SOURCE ;latestlaws.com/

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.