whatsapp x

WhatsApp Number

8750970582

Message
phone x
8750970582
email x
info@lawminds.co.in

Delhi HC asks BCI, BCD to decide on representation seeking‘ stipend & fair remuneration guidelines’ for new advocates

In Delhi, the High Court on Friday disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea aimed at establishing proper guidelines for stipends and remuneration for newly enrolled advocates. The bench, consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, deemed the plea premature and observed that the respondents, namely the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Delhi, had not been given sufficient time to respond since the representation letter was filed on January 24. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to review the representation promptly and issue a reasoned order.

The PIL, presented by Advocate Simran Kumari, urged the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Delhi to formulate guidelines ensuring fair remuneration. The absence of such fair remuneration not only poses challenges for young law graduates but also influences decisions to shift to alternative professions, argued the plea.

While a representation letter seeking guidelines for establishing a minimum amount of remuneration was sent to the respondents, no response was received, according to the PIL. The primary objective of the PIL was to prompt the creation of “Stipend and Remuneration Guidelines” by the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Delhi. This initiative aimed to guarantee a fair amount of compensation for newly enrolled advocates and interns associated with law firms or advocates’ chambers, allowing junior advocates and interns to focus on skill development and knowledge acquisition.

The plea highlighted the financial challenges faced by junior advocates and interns, asserting that the legal profession is considered one of the least remunerative for young advocates entering law offices or chambers. The PIL emphasized the importance of supporting young advocates from the outset with fair remuneration and providing stipends to interns to prevent demoralization within the legal community. Advocate Tushar Tanwar represented and argued on behalf of the petitioner.

SC terms curative plea against 2013 verdict on criminalising samesex infructuous

In New Delhi, on Thursday, the Supreme Court declared curative petitions filed against the December 11, 2013, judgment, which criminalized homosexuality under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, as moot in light of the 2018 judgment by a Constitution bench. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices B R Gavai, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, comprising a five-judge bench, concluded the proceedings on the curative petitions.

The bench stated, “We will say the curative petitions have been rendered infructuous by the judgment delivered by this court in Navtej Johar.” In the Naz Foundation Vs Union of India case, the Delhi High Court had in 2009 invalidated Section 377 IPC. However, in 2013, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Suresh Kumar Koushal Vs Naz Foundation, overturned the Delhi High Court’s decision, affirming the validity of the penal provision. Subsequently, in January 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed a series of review petitions.

In 2018, responding to a batch of writ petitions, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India ruled that consensual same-sex relations among adults could not be deemed criminal. The court then struck down the provision to that extent, asserting that “Constitutional morality cannot be equated to a majoritarian view. The LGBT community possesses the same rights as any citizens of the country.”

However, the curative petitions filed in 2014 against the 2013 Suresh Koushal judgment remained pending until now. A curative petition serves as the final judicial recourse for addressing grievances in court, typically decided by judges in-chamber. In rare instances, such petitions may undergo an open court hearing.