Point of Law: scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961 as also the various Bar Council Rules and Regulations give primacy to the place of practice and not residence. Governmental policies are amenable to judicial review and if the allegation is one of discrimination the same would have to be examined on the touchstone of Art.14.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. Insurance for lawyers has been an aspiration for several years. Though more than two decades have passed since the enactment of the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001, group life insurance and Mediclaim/health insurance for lawyers, has merely remained in the statute books. It is under these circumstances that 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. The stated object of the Scheme is set out in the Background note put up before the Cabinet of the GNCTD, as under:

“1. Lawyers have played a central role since time immemorial in not only drafting the Constitution but in protecting the citizenry’s basic rights and upholding the basic concepts of secularism, democracy and egalitarianism and usher in persistent reforms since Independence. Advocates have been the tallest leaders of our democracy since independence and their work for the society at large is ample proof of the hard work and toil of each member of the legal fraternity to lead and reform his nation. The profession and the growth of the legal fraternity in our society promotes an environment which is just and strong to stand up against the wrong and nurture an environment conducive for constructive dialogue amongst citizens, builds a strong democracy encouraging active citizen engagement and participation in nation building and fosters a society which is equitable and conscientious.

2. Government of NCT of Delhi, in recognition of the role being played by the advocates in the society and the legal profession in particular announced the “Chief Minister Advocates’ Welfare Scheme”. An outlay of Rs. 50 crore, an annual fund, has been made under the said scheme for utilization for the welfare of the legal community, in the Budget of 2019-20.”

Thus, the Scheme was launched by the GNCTD to recognise the role of advocates, both in society and in the legal profession.

2. The object of the Scheme is indeed laudable and very impactful, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, two issues have been raised in these petitions, qua the Scheme:

• The first, is in respect of a condition in the Scheme that the benefit of the same will only be available to such advocates whose names appear in the voters list of Delhi. A 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, have been excluded due to this condition, as they are not residents of Delhi but reside outside Delhi, predominantly in the NCR region in areas such as Noida, Gurugram, Faridabad, Ghaziabad etc.

• 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.

3. Three of the six petitions i.e., W.P.(C) 3298/2020, W.P.(C) 3357/2020 and W.P.(C) 1840/2021, have been filed by individual advocates who are members of the BCD but who reside outside Delhi, including Noida, Gurugram, Faridabad, Ghaziabad, Ferozepur. In W.P.(C) 1840/2021 there are 14 writ Petitioners who are all advocates. In this petition, the grievance of Petitioner Nos.1 to 7 is that they have successfully applied for the Scheme but have not been provided with the insurance policies. Petitioner Nos 8 to 11 are members of the BCD who do not have a voter ID card of Delhi and seek extension of the Scheme to them. Petitioner Nos 12 to 14 are advocates who registered with the BCD after the deadline for registering for the Scheme and seek reopening of the registration.

4. The BCD has filed the remaining three petitions, being W.P.(C) 336