2020 (7) TMI 697 - HC - Indian Laws

PIL - welfare of advocates - non-inclusion of advocates in the definition of the word professionals under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Petitioner in person submitted that this public interest litigation has therefore been preferred for the welfare of advocates as a class, so that the benefits which flow from inclusion under the Act, 2006 is also available to them. HELD THAT - We are not inclined to entertain this petition as a Public Interest Litigation. It ought to be kept in mind that such public interest litigation for the benefit of a class of persons can be preferred if the affected persons are unable to access the courts, e.g. the poorest of the poor, illiterates, children, and other classes of people who may be handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy or lack of understanding of the law. Looking to the fact that advocates are capable enough to approach the Court, if aggrieved, we see no reason to entertain this public interest litigation. As and when any advocate will approach the Court, decision can be taken on merits in accordance with law, rules and regulations applicable to the facts of the case. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption application under C.M.No.16906/2020.
2. Public interest litigation regarding the inclusion of advocates under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

Exemption Application (C.M.No.16906/2020):
The Chief Justice allowed the exemption application, subject to all just exceptions, in the matter conducted through video conferencing. The application under C.M.No.16906/2020 was granted.

Public Interest Litigation - Inclusion of Advocates under MSME Act:
The public interest litigation sought to amend the criteria defining "Professional" to include advocates for accessing government welfare schemes under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The petitioner also requested various directions, including developing banking products for advocates, issuing guidelines for collateral-free loans, and initiating training programs for digital adoption and online hearings. The main grievance highlighted was the non-inclusion of advocates in the definition of "professionals" under the Act, 2006. However, the court declined to entertain the petition as a public interest litigation. It emphasized that such litigations are typically for marginalized groups who face difficulties accessing the courts due to various constraints. Since advocates are capable of approaching the court individually when aggrieved, the court found no basis to entertain the public interest litigation. The judgment stated that decisions on such matters should be made when an advocate approaches the court, based on the applicable laws and regulations. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in light of the court's observations.

---