KAPIL GOYAL AND ORS vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 4 June, 2021
th
Date of decision: 12 July, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 3298/2020 and CM APPL. 11567/2020
GOVIND SWAROOP CHATURVEDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Petitioner in
person.
versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate and
Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.
Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Advocate for
NIACL with Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Branch Manager.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Chairman, BCD.
Mr. Rakesh Khanna and Mr. K.C.
Mittal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rajiv
Khosla, Advocate for BCD.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for LIC.
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 3357/2020
BALVINDER SINGH BAGGA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Naginder Benipal,
Mr. Tarranjit Singh Sawhney,
Advocates with Mr. Balvinder Singh
Bagga and Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, in
person.
versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate and
Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.
Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Advocate for
NIACL with Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Branch Manager.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Chairman, BCD.
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 1 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Mr. Rakesh Khanna and Mr. K.C.
Mittal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rajiv
Khosla, Advocate for BCD.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for LIC.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 3362/2020 and CM APPLs. 11901/2020, 17666/2020,
29369/2020
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN ……Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna and Mr. K.C.
Mittal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rajiv
Khosla, Advocate for BCD.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Chairman, BCD.
versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate and
Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.
Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Advocate for
NIACL with Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Branch Manager.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Chairman, BCD.
Mr. Rakesh Khanna and Mr. K.C.
Mittal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rajiv
Khosla, Advocate for BCD.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for LIC.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC with Ms.
Nidhi Mittal, Advocate for R-3 (M:
8800185864).
AND
+ W.P.(C) 4303/2020
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna and Mr. K.C.
Mittal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rajiv
Khosla, Advocate for BCD.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Chairman, BCD.
Mr. P.K. Dixit, in person.
versus
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 2 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
GOVT. OF NCTD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate Mr.
Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.
Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Advocate for
NIACL with Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Branch Manager.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Chairman, BCD.
Mr. Rakesh Khanna and Mr. K.C.
Mittal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rajiv
Khosla, Advocate for BCD.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for LIC.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC with Ms.
Nidhi Mittal, Advocate for R-3 (M:
8800185864).
AND
+ W.P.(C) 4304/2020
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna and Mr. K.C.
Mittal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rajiv
Khosla, Advocate for BCD.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Chairman, BCD.
Mr. P.K. Dixit, in person.
versus

GOVT. OF NCTD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate Mr.
Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.
Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Advocate for
NIACL with Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Branch Manager.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Chairman, BCD.
Mr. Rakesh Khanna and Mr. K.C.
Mittal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rajiv
Khosla, Advocate for BCD.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for LIC.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 1840/2021
KAPIL GOYAL AND ORS ..... Petitioners
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 3 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Through: Mr. Sahel Sood, Advocate.
versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate Mr.
Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.
Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Advocate for
NIACL with Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Branch Manager.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Chairman, BCD.
Mr. Rakesh Khanna and Mr. K.C.
Mittal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rajiv
Khosla, Advocate for BCD.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for LIC.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH


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
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 4 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
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
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 5 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
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 No’s 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)
3362/2020, W.P.(C) 4303/2020 and W.P.(C) 4304/2020, broadly seeking the
following reliefs –
• for issuance of insurance policies to advocates who are already
registered for the Scheme,
• for extending the Scheme to advocates who are enrolled with the
BCD but are residing in the NCR region/neighbouring areas and
• for reopening of the registration under the Scheme.

W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 6 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
5. The reliefs sought in all these petitions can broadly be summarised as
under:
i. Issuance of insurance policies to all eligible advocates already
registered under the Scheme;
ii. Quashing of the condition requiring advocates to have a voter
ID card of Delhi for obtaining the insurance policies under the
Scheme. In effect, therefore, what is sought is the extension of the
Scheme to lawyers residing outside Delhi, in the NCR
region/neighbouring areas, so long as they are registered with the Bar
Council of Delhi.
iii. Reopening of the registration portal to enable advocates who
have been unable to register as yet, to put in their registrations.

Background of the Scheme
6. The GNCTD decided to recognise the role of advocates in society and
the legal profession in general and accordingly, constituted a Committee on
th
29 November, 2019 to propose schemes for the welfare of advocates. An
annual outlay of Rs.50 crores was created for the year 2019-20 for the said
purpose. The Committee constituted of 12 members which included the
President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Delhi High Court Bar
Association, representatives of the Bar Associations of Patiala House Court,
Saket Court, Rohini Court, Dwarka Court, Tis Hazari Court and Shahdara
Courts, the then Chairperson of the BCD, two Standing Counsels for the
GNCTD in the Delhi High Court and two advocates chosen by the GNCTD.
The order appointing the Committee reads as under:

W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 7 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
“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’s Advocates Welfare
Scheme. An outlay of Rs. 50 crores, 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.

It is considered desirable to constitute a
committee consisting of advocates which may
propose schemes for welfare of advocates so that
the budget outlay sanctioned by GNCTD is utilized
properly for the welfare of all advocates. Towards
this end, a Committee of the following is
constituted:-
…

The said Committee may submit its
recommendations towards drafting the scheme for
the welfare of advocates within 10 days of its
formation.”

7. Prior to giving its recommendations, the Committee had considered
data relating to the number of advocates registered with the BCD and also
held negotiations with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter,
‘LIC’) and other general insurance companies for providing health and life
insurance. A total of 40,115 advocates were considered by the Committee,
to be beneficiaries, which included advocates from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas. LIC had broadly agreed for a premium of
Rs.2.478 per advocate per thousand rupees sum assured, inclusive of GST,
for advocates up to the age of 60 years and Rs.2.80 per advocate per
thousand rupees sum assured for advocates in the age group of 61 to 75
years. The total premium amount payable to the LIC for 40,115 advocates
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 8 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
was approximately Rs.10 crores.
8. Insofar as group medi-claim coverage was concerned, after
considering the quotation given by the New India Assurance Company
Limited (hereinafter, ‘NIACL’) and the National Insurance Company
Limited, as also the inability expressed by the United India Insurance
Company, the Committee recommended accepting the proposal given by
NIACL. NIACL offered a family floater policy of Rs. 5,00,000/- and other
benefits at a premium of Rs.8,500/- plus GST per advocate plus their spouse
and two dependent children or at Rs.8,000/- plus GST per advocate plus
their spouse and two dependent children, without maternity cover. The first
offer received from NIACL of a premium at the rate of Rs.8,500/- plus GST
was accepted by the Committee.
9. 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. Provision for a creche facility
was also discussed for six District Courts, which the LIC has agreed to
provide as part of its corporate social responsibility. The verified list of
eligible beneficiaries in the various bar associations were also considered.
Finally, the Committee resolved as under:
“The Committee is of the considered opinion that
all practising advocates in Delhi who are on the
verified rolls of the Bar Council of Delhi i.e.,
40,115 who are on the electoral rolls of any of the
Bar Associations in Delhi namely: the Supreme
Court Bar Association, the Delhi High Court Bar
Association, the Bar Association of the Rohini
Court, the Tis Hazari Court, the Dwarka Court,
the Karkardooma Court, the Saket Court, Patiala
House, National Green Tribunal, NCLT, NCLAT,
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 9 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Income tax tribunals, Service Tax tribunal, Armed
Forces Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Central
Administrative Tribunal, National Consumer
Commission, State Consumer Forum, as on
01.12.2019, upon due endorsement by Bar Council
of Delhi and cross-endorsement by the respective
Bar Association where they have their voting
rights, be treated as beneficiaries under this
scheme.”

10. The Committee submitted its report on December, 2019 and the
scheme which was proposed by the Committee was as under:
(1) Group (Term) Insurance for practising advocates providing life
cover of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) per advocate.
(2) Group Medi-claim coverage for the advocates, their spouse and
two dependent children up to the age of 25 years, for a family floater
sum insured of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh).
(3) E-library with 10 computers loaded with e-journals and web
editions of e-journals, along with printers in all the 6 district courts.
(4) Creche facility for advocates and staff employees in each of the 6
district courts.
11. A perusal of the annexures to the report of the Committee shows that
the declaration form sought the following details from advocates:






W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 10 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
CHIEF MINISTER’S ADVOCATES WELFARE SCHEME
DECLARATION FORM
1. Name of the Advocate ................................................................
2. Date of birth ................................................................................
3. Residential Address ...................................................................
4. Office Address ...........................................................................
5. Delhi Bar Council Membership No. ..........................................
6. Bar Association in which advocate has voting rights.................
7. Bar Association Membership No. ..............................................
8. Bar Association Voter list No. ...................................................
9. AADHAR No. ............................................................................
10. Voter ID Card No. ....................................................................
11. Contact No. ......... Landline No. .......... Mobile No................
12. Email id. .....................................................................................
13. Name and Date of Birth of spouse…..........................................
14. Name and Date of Birth of the first child....................................
15. Name and Date of Birth of the second child…...........................

Verification by the Bar Council of Delhi: It is certified that the aforementioned Advocate
is in the list of the verified Advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi.
Secretary of the Bar Council of Delhi

Verification by the Bar Association: It is certified that the aforementioned Advocate
is a voter in the __________ Bar Association as on 01.12.2019.

Secretary/ President
________ Bar Association

Enclosed:
1. Attested copy of AADHAR Card.
2. Attested copy of Bar Association I.D. Card.
3. Attested copy of Bar Council of Delhi I.D. Card.
4. Attested copy of Voter I.D. card.

A joint reading of the Committee’s report as also the Declaration form
shows that all advocates enrolled with the BCD were to be beneficiaries of
the Scheme and the Voter ID Card was of a Bar Association, in order to
ensure that the concerned advocate was a member of one of the Bar
Associations in Delhi.
12. The report of this Committee was then considered by the Minister
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 11 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
(Law), GNCTD. A note was put up by the Minister (Law), GNCTD before
the Council of Ministers. The background set out in this note, which forms
the basis of the Scheme, is recorded 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.”

13. Thereafter, the note records the recommendations of the Committee
for group (term) insurance, group medi-claim coverage, e-library and creche
facilities. In the recommendations for group (term) insurance and group
medi-claim coverage, reference is made to practising Advocates registered
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 12 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
in Delhi. Finally, approval was sought by the Minister (Law), GNCTD in the
following terms:
“ APPROVAL SOUGHT

5. After deliberations the Committee has submitted
a report [ANNEXURE ‘B’] on 12.12.2019 vide
which it has proposed the following schemes:-

1. Group (Term) Insurance for practising
advocates providing life cover of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs) per advocate.

2. Group Medi-claim coverage for the
advocates, their spouse and two dependent
children up to the age of 25 years, for a family
floater sum insured of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs).

3. E-library with 10 computers loaded with e-
journals and web editions of e-journals, along with
printers in all the 6 district courts.

4. Creche facility for advocates and staff
employees in each of the 6 district courts.

Details of the aforesaid schemes are as under:

Scheme 1: Group (Term) Insurance

It has been proposed that every practising
advocate in Delhi should be given Life Term
Insurance of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs).
On the basis of negotiations carried out by the
Committee with various Life Insurance
Companies, it has been estimated by the
Committee that premium amount would work out
to Rs.10,07,70,894/-(Ten Crores Seven lakhs
Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety
Four). The actual premium amount would
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 13 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
however be known only after the Government has
selected the Company through a competitive
process.

Scheme-2: Group Medi-Claim Coverage

The Committee is of the opinion that every
practising advocate registered in Delhi should be
given Medical coverage facility by providing them
Group medical Coverage through an Insurance
company.

The Committee undertook the exercise of inviting
quotations from the nationalised Government of
India undertakings for providing group Medi-
Claim coverage. It has been recommended by the
Committee that Group Medi-calim Policy for the
advocate, spouse and two dependent children may
be provided by the Government. The annual
premium cost per policy has been estimated as
Rs.8500/- plus GST. The total annual premium,
taking the number of advocates as 40115, which
has been given by the Committee, works out to
Rs.34,09,77,500/- (Rupees Thirty Four Crores
Nine Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Five Hundred
only) plus GST. The actual premium amount
would however be known only after the
Government has selected the Company through a
competitive process.

Scheme-3: Facility of E-library

E-library facilities are lacking in the District
Court Bar Associations. The advocates practising
in the district courts face serious problem in
carrying out legal research of the Act, Rules and
the case law required to prepare their cases and
arguments. The Committee has recommended that
each District Court, namely, Tis Hazari Court,
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 14 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Patiala House Court, Kakardooma Court, Saket
Court, Dwarka Court and Rohini Court, be
provided with 10 computers, fully loaded with e-
journals, their web editions including SCC Online,
All India Reporter, Manupatra, Delhi Law Times
etc. along with heavy duty printers. The lawyers
be permitted to use this E-library free of cost.
However, the cost of printing of their case laws
and legal material be worked out on actual basis.

Schem-4: Creche Facility

A large number of female advocates are enrolled
with the Bar Council of Delhi. Similarly, there are
female staff employed by the advocates and the
various courts in Delhi. The Committee has
pointed out that creche facilities are lacking in the
district courts. Government of NCT of Delhi
should undertake the establishment and running of
crèches under the “Chief Minister Advocates’
Welfare Scheme” on the lines of the creche being
run in the Supreme Court of India.


6. The proposal contained in para 5 above may
be approved.

7. The scheme would be applicable to
practising advocates who are enrolled with the
Bar Council of Delhi and are also in the voters’
list of Delhi.


8. The modalities for the implementation of this
scheme would be decided by the Minister (Law,
Justice & Legislative Affairs).”

14. The said note was put up before the Council of Ministers of the
th
GNCTD. Vide Cabinet Decision No. 2794 dated 18 December, 2019, the
approval was granted, which reads as under:
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 15 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
“ CABINET DECISION NO. 2794 DATED
18.12.2019

Subject: CHIEF MINISTER ADVOCATES’
WELFARE SCHEME” FOR ADVOCATES
ENROLLED ON THE BAR COUNCIL OF
DELHI.

Decision: The Council of Ministers considered
the note of the Minister (Law, Justice &
Legislative Affairs) and approved the proposal
contained in para 6, 7 and 8 of the Cabinet Note.


Council of Ministers further directed Pr. Secretary
(Law) to immediately initiate the process of
floating tender whenever necessary. Pr. Secretary
(Law) shall also simultaneously initiate the
process of inviting online application for
beneficiaries after development of the software for
the same”

The Cabinet thus approved the proposals in paragraphs 5-8 of the Note
extracted above.
15. Pursuant to this decision, a Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter,
‘NIT’) was called for a total of 40,115 lawyers, however, for various
reasons, the said exercise did not fructify. The Covid-19 pandemic broke out
in March, 2020 and the process of obtaining insurance was disrupted,
leading to the filing of the present writ petitions.
Proceedings in the various writ petitions
16. Various issues were canvassed from time to time in these writ
petitions. The GNCTD’s stand initially was that it was not taking an
adversarial stand and that the issues raised by the BCD and the advocates
th
would be resolved. As recorded in order dated 18 June, 2020, a submission
was made on behalf of the GNCTD that a total of 29,098 advocates who are
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 16 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
registered with the BCD and have voter ID cards of Delhi were verified.
Considering the large number of advocates who would benefit during the
pandemic, while keeping the issue relating to the advocates from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas pending, this Court directed the NIT to be issued
for finalising the insurance policies.
17. Thereafter, from time to time, this Court has monitored the issuance
of the insurance policies. After the issuance of the NIT and receipt of bids, it
was seen that both LIC and NIACL had nearly doubled the premium they
had initially proposed, owing to the pandemic. Finally, the premium which
th
was finalised with both the companies is recorded in order dated 7 October,
2020 as under:
“ 11. With the assistance of the officials of
GNCTD, including the Committee constituted for
this purpose, Senior Counsels who have appeared
today and representatives of the Bar, including the
present as well as erstwhile Chairman of the BCD,
the said companies have arrived at the final
figures for issuance of the policies. The terms and
conditions of the group (term) life-insurance
th
policies are provided in LIC’s email dated 14
September, 2020, which reads as under:

“This refers to the second VC held in the
th
aforesaid matter on 9 September under
Chairmanship of Shri Azimul Haque, IAS,
Chairman of Technical Evaluation
Committee for the aforesaid matter.

The draft minutes of the said VC has been
received and the same was placed before the
Chairman of the Corporation for looking
into the natter of granting Exclusive and
Special reduction, as requested by the
Government of State of NCT of Delhi in the
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 17 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
aforesaid matter, so as to enable them to
proceed with covering 28,744 Advocate
members of Delhi Bar Council as mentioned
under the bid document floated for the said
purpose. It may be noted that the Chairman
of the Corporation exercising his
discretionary powers, has, as a very special
case, accepted the said request as preferred
by the Government of NCT of Delhi through
the Chairman of its Evaluation Committee
for the aforesaid bid and thus, the revised
annual premium for the aforesaid group of
28,774 Advocate members of Delhi Bar
Council shall now be Rs. 10,07,70,894/-,
provided the Age Distribution of proposed
members to be covered meets following Age
Distribution, as shared:

Age Group
(Years)
No of Advocate
Members
21-25 2728
26-30 5539
31-35 4230
36-40 3931
41-45 3455
46-50 3001
51-55 2029
56-60 1306
61-65 1188
66-70 886
71-74(NBD) 481
Total 28774

This Exclusive and Special consideration
shall only be applicable in respect of the
Bid document under reference (proposing
to cover 28774 Bar Council Members,
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 18 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Delhi) and shall not include any other
Group/Additional Members under the same
Group (other than indicated vide Bid under
reference). The special rate, approved
without Profit sharing, shall be valid for a
period of 1 year from the date of
Commencement of Policy and the same will
be reviewed as at next Annual Renewal
Date.
This Special Consideration shall not form
any precedence for the said Group (Delhi
Bar Council) for any additional
members/future renewals and/or for any
other Bar Council in India, if they so
desire to Insure their Advocate Members.
All future/further reference shall be
reviewed afresh, independently.
xxxxxx
Hemant Buch
Chief/P&GS. (Marketing/Govt Business &
Compliance)
LIC of India, Central Office, Mumbai
xxxx”
Insofar as the group (term) life-insurance policies
are concerned, the LIC’s final quotation with
respect to 28,774 lawyers is thus finalised at
Rs.10,07,70,894/- as set out in the above email.

12. Insofar as the group medi-claim insurance
policies are concerned, Mr. Jitendra Mehndiratta,
Deputy General Manager at the NIAC has made a
detailed presentation today and instead of
Rs.12,000/- as earlier quoted, has agreed for a
final rate of Rs.10,500/- as per family premium
payable, for a total of 29,077 lawyers. However,
this would be with the modification of one term of
the policy i.e., co-payment would now be 25%
instead of 20%. The remaining terms as contained
th
in letter dated 14 September, 2020 and reiterated
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 19 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
on 4th October, 2020 shall remain intact. Mr.
Mehndiratta has agreed to all these terms, subject
to all the policies being purchased on or before
th
30 November, 2020. The above rates have also
been agreed to be extended till 40,115 lawyers by
the NIAC, if this Court decides that the said
lawyers are also entitled to the Scheme of the
Delhi Government.”

Thus, the annual insurance premium payable per advocate that was finalised
is as under:
Particulars Persons covered Annual
premium
Insured
amount

Life Insurance
Demise of advocate Rs.3,502/- per
Rs.10,00,000/-
(LIC)
advocate

Mediclaim
Advocate plus family
Rs.10,500/-
Rs.5,00,000/-
Insurance
(spouse and two
dependent children
per family
(NIACL)
up to the age of 25
years)

18. By the time of conclusion of hearings, a total of 28,744 lawyers have
been issued life insurance policies by LIC and 29,077 lawyers have been
issued medi-claim policies by NIACL. Out of the total number of lawyers
who have been issued the policies, according to the GNCTD, 5,044 number
of lawyers are not entitled to the insurance policies as they do not have a
voter ID card of Delhi. Hence, it is submitted that the premium in respect of
these advocates ought to be refunded to the GNCTD. Further, it is found that
557 number of lawyers, registered with the BCD and also having voter ID
cards of Delhi, are entitled to the policies, however, due to the late
verification, they have not yet been issued the policies. The total amount
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 20 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
paid by the GNCTD to the LIC and NIACL is approximately Rs. 40 crores.
The polices issued by both the companies are for a period of one year.
19. During the course of hearings, the Court was informed that several
advocates who had been issued the insurance policies have, in fact, availed
of the same and benefitted during the pandemic.
Submissions of Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Petitioner in person in W.P.(C)
3298/2020

20. Mr. Chaturvedi, Petitioner in person has appeared in W.P.(C)
3298/2020 and made his submissions. The challenge in this writ petition is
to the criteria prescribed by the Delhi Government for extending the benefit
of the Scheme only to Advocates, who are registered voters in Delhi and
possess voter ID cards in Delhi. Mr. Chaturvedi submits that 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. The
purpose of the Scheme is not merely to give benefit to advocates living and
residing in Delhi. He submits that the advocates from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas, who are practicing in Delhi, also contribute to
the dispensation of justice in Delhi and they appear in various courts,
including the District Courts and High Court in Delhi. He also highlights the
unique character of the NCR region, which is a recognized area wherein a
large number of advocates, who are practicing in Delhi, live and reside and
commute to Delhi on a daily basis.
21. Mr. Chaturvedi submits that the BCD as per its enrolment form
merely mentions as a pre-condition for enrolment with it that advocates
should practise within the state of Delhi. The enrolment form is highlighted
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 21 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
to show that being a resident of Delhi is not an eligibility criteria to be
registered with BCD. It is also emphasised that undertakings given by the
advocates registered with BCD includes the following – ‘I intent to practice
ordinarily and regularly within the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of Delhi’ .
As per the undertakings, advocates are permitted to live within the NCR
region and if there is any change in their residence, they have to inform the
BCD of the same. He thus submits that the BCD does not extend its
jurisdiction only to advocates who are residents of Delhi but also to
advocates who hail from the NCR region.
22. It is further urged by the Petitioner that such a discriminatory position
cannot be adopted when a Welfare Scheme like the present one is being
extended to advocates who face the same occupational hazards, irrespective
of whether they are residents of Delhi or not.
23. He further submits that advocates from the NCR region/neighbouring
areas who choose to enrol with BCD are not permitted to register with their
respective State Bar Councils, for example Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh or
Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana. Thus, they become ineligible for welfare
schemes for advocates that are floated by those Bar Councils for their own
advocates. If the said advocates are not extended benefit of the present
Scheme as well, they would be adversely affected as they would not be
entitled for welfare schemes either in their respective States, nor from Delhi.
This would be extremely disadvantageous for advocates from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas.
24. He submits that the Bar Councils in other states also have various
rules, which limit the extent of practice which the advocates from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas registered with BCD can engage in. Reliance is
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 22 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jamshed Ansari v. High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors., AIR 2018 SC 3997 to argue that,
in effect, there is a bar on lawyers enrolled with one State Bar Council to
appear in another High Court without a local lawyer. Thus, interest of
advocates from the NCR region/neighbouring areas should not be
jeopardized by excluding them from benefit of the welfare Scheme launched
by the Delhi Government.
25. Thereafter, the Petitioner relies upon the decision in Social Jurist, A
Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2018) 253
DLT 466 (DB) , wherein a similar eligibility criteria of voter ID card for
grant of medical care was struck down by the Court. He submits that the
restriction that medical treatment would only be extended to persons who
have voter ID cards in Delhi having been struck down in Social Jurist
(supra) , the same criteria cannot be adopted even for extension of
Mediclaim or Life Insurance policies, which are akin to grant of medical
treatment.
26. It is further 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. Reliance is place upon LIC of India & Ors. v. CERC
& Ors., AIR 1995 SCC 1811, Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. ESIC, AIR 1996
SC 3261 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jay Prakash Tayal,
247 (2018) DLT 379. He seeks to distinguish the judgment in DP Joshi v.
State of M.B., AIR 1955 SC 334 by arguing that the domicile in that case
related to capitation fee and not any health related issue. Moreover, domicile
is an issue which is decided on the basis of birth, education and property but
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 23 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
not on the basis of voter ID.
27. It is further submitted that since the crèche facility and the library
facility, which is also part of the scheme, cannot now be set up owing to the
current situation, the budgetary allocation could also be made flexible. Since
these facilities, if established, cannot be discriminatory qua lawyers from the
NCR region/neighbouring areas, even the insurance facility should not be
discriminatory.
28. In conclusion, the Petitioner submits that the said criteria and the
th
cabinet decision dated 18 December, 2019 and the consequent notification
th
dated 17 March, 2020 deserves to be struck down and the Welfare Scheme
ought to be extended to include advocates from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas who are registered with BCD as well. So long as
they are registered with the BCD, advocates who may be from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas should be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme.
He further submits that all those advocates, whose verification has been
conducted by the BCD, being residents of NCR region/neighbouring areas,
should be entitled to the Scheme this year.
29. Mr. Chaturvedi lastly submits that if the budget is not available with
the GNCTD, some part of the premium can be contributed by the advocate
concerned who is a beneficiary, so as to ensure that the Scheme can be made
workable and the budgets are not overstretched.

Submissions of Mr. A.S. Chandiok, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners in
W.P.(C) 3357/2020

30. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners
in W.P.(C) 3357/2020 submits that in the case of the BCD, or any other
State Bar Council, primacy is given to the place of practice and not to the
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 24 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
place of residence. Reliance is placed on the Certificate and place of Practice
(Verification) Rules, 2015, wherein repeated emphasis has been placed on
the place of practice and jurisdiction under which the advocate intends to
practise.
31. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that the verification which is conducted
by the BCD also relates to the place of practice. The roll of advocates
mentions the place and address and not just the name of advocates. Clause
6.1 of the Rules, which provides for where an advocate is to get
himself/herself registered, uses the expression “where he ordinarily
practices law or intends to practice law” . On the strength of Clause 6.2, it is
submitted that even when one advocate leaves one Bar Association and
moves to another State, he has to inform the said change to the State Bar
Council where he is enjoying membership. Chapter 4, Rule 8 of the Rules is
also relied upon to argue that the “Certificate to practice and place of
Practice” which is received is also to be verified by the BCD, prior to
enrolling an advocate.
32. The submission is also that there is no importance or relevance of
whether the advocate is a voter or not. What is important is the Court or the
place where the advocate would practice inasmuch as an undertaking is also
given by the advocate that if he shifts his place of practice, his enrolment
would also have to be transferred.
33. Reference is also made to the definition of “Voter”, “Electoral Roll”
and other provisions of the Bar Council of Delhi Rules, 1963 to emphasize
that even the BCD Rules do not give any importance to the place of
residence of the advocate. The electoral roll relates to the electoral roll
maintained by the BCD in which every member is permitted to vote.
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 25 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Specific reliance is placed upon Rules 115, 120 and 125.
34. Mr. Chandhiok, ld. Senior counsel, refers to the declaration to be
given by an advocate who seeks registration. The undertaking requires the
advocate to mention that he intends to practice as an advocate within the
jurisdiction of the BCD, which includes the NCR region. Reference is 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, which is also clear from page 45 of the
documents compilation. Neither the budget speech nor the Scheme mentions
residence as being important in any manner whatsoever.
35. As per the Master Plan, the various zones which are carved out which
mention the NCR and NCT region also show that the Master Plan itself
contemplates that the persons who are resident in the NCR, are part of the
broader Delhi region. Hence, it is submitted that there cannot be a
differentiation by the Delhi Government on the basis of voters and non-
voters.
36. Reference is made to the Rules of the High Court of Rajasthan, the
Allahabad High Court Rules and the Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules to
show that those members who are enrolled with the BCD, would not be
permitted to practice in these High Courts like localites, even if their
residence is in States which are in geographical proximity to Delhi. Once a
lawyer is enrolled with the BCD, he or she would be required to engage a
local lawyer to appear in these Courts, which itself proves the fact that the
benefit would have to be extended to all advocates enrolled with the BCD. It
is also submitted that if the other State Bar Councils come out with any
welfare scheme, it would apply only to the advocates registered on their roll
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 26 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
and not advocates who are residing in the said States. Place of residence
having no relevance under the entire scheme of the Certificate and place of
Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 or the BCD Rules, the said distinction
which is now sought to be made is not a tenable distinction.
37. Finally, Mr. Chandhiok, ld. Senior counsel concludes by submitting
that the measure which has been taken by the Delhi Government is a welfare
measure for providing security, medical facilities, etc. to lawyers and the
same cannot be converted into an election campaign. He submits that the
lawyers who are practicing in Delhi have made a great contribution in the
dispensation of justice in the Delhi Courts.
38. Page 8 of the counter affidavit is relied upon to argue that during the
th
implementation of the scheme, an e-mail dated 16 March, 2020 was sent to
all the lawyers who are enrolled with the BCD, which included the
advocates from the NCR region/neighbouring areas. Thus, the scheme was
never meant only for lawyers who are residents of Delhi but to all lawyers
who are enrolled with the BCD whose verification would be done.
39. Mr. Chandhiok, ld. Senior Counsel also clarifies that this is not a case
where the writ of mandamus is sought. This is a case where quashing of the
requirement of the voter ID of Delhi is being sought, which is a condition in
this scheme. Thus, it is in the nature of a writ of certiorari.
Submission of Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Advocate for the Petitioners
40. Mr. Rajiv Khosla, ld. counsel appearing in support of the Petitioners
submits 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
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 27 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
life insurance. Similar submissions were also made by Mr. Rakesh Khanna,
Senior Counsel and Mr. K.C. Mittal, ld. Sr. Counsel, as also the ex-
chairperson of the BCD,
41. Ld. counsel submits that during the Covid-19 pandemic the
discrimination is to such a great effect that if there is a death of any advocate
and the said advocate is a resident of Delhi, he or she is entitled to
Rs.10,00,000/- under the scheme, whereas if that advocate is not a resident
of Delhi, he/she is not being benefitted under the scheme. He submits that
such discrimination ought not to be permitted by the Court.

Submissions of Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate for the BCD
42. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, ld. Senior Advocate, who is also the current
Chairman of the BCD, submits 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. He further
submits that advocates from the NCR region/neighbouring areas, who are
primarily practicing and appearing in Delhi District Courts and Delhi High
Court ought to be permitted to avail of the benefit under the said scheme.
Submission of Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate for the BCD
43. It is submitted that the present petitions raise two issues, first is in
respect of the opening of a window of opportunity for those advocates who
could not register themselves for availing the benefit of the Chief Minister’s
Advocates Welfare Scheme and secondly, as to whether the benefits of the
Scheme ought to be extended to advocates who are residents of the NCR
region/neighbouring areas.
44. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, it is urged that the insurance
companies have already agreed to make available insurance policies on the
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 28 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
basis of pro-rata arrangement i.e., for the remainder of the period for which
insurance has been availed of for the entire set of lawyers to whom policies
have already been issued. Accordingly, it is submitted that even if a window
of opportunity is opened as on date, the insurance premium that would be
payable would be on a pro-rata basis for the remainder of the period and
hence, no prejudice would be caused.
45. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, in respect of the advocates
who are residing in the NCR region/neighbouring areas, reference is made to
the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, including the definitions.
46. On the basis of Sections 16 and 18 it is argued that the important fact
is the place where the advocate is practicing and not the place of residence
of the advocate. Under Section 24, the various qualifications which are
needed for an advocate to be admitted on a State roll are specified and
residence is not one of the criteria. It is thus urged that the concept of
residence is completely alien to the Advocates Act, 1961 and to the roll
maintained by the Bar Council.
47. Reliance is, thereafter, placed on the rules of the BCD, specifically
Rule 102, Rule 120 and Rule 140, as also the declaration form and the
undertaking which is given by every advocate. It is emphasised that the
undertaking is to the effect that every advocate would undertake to practice
ordinarily within Delhi and is not required to give an undertaking that he
would reside in Delhi.
48. The following judgments are also cited to support the proposition that
advocates are governed by the Advocates Act, 1961 and even when
pensionary benefits etc. are to be computed in respect of those persons who
are either part of the district judiciary or the higher judiciary, the computing
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 29 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
of experience is on the basis of the years of practice by being attached to a
particular Bar Council and not the place of residence:
1. S.P. Gupta v. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149
2. All India Young Lawyers Association v. GNCTD & Ors., (2006) 128
DLT 29 (DB)
3. State (NCT of Delhi) v. All India Young Lawyers Association,
(2009) 14 SCC 49
4. P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 12 SCC 1
5. Shanker Raju v. Union of India & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine Delhi
6675
49. On the basis of all these judgments, it is argued by Mr. Khanna that
advocates are to be considered as one class of persons and there cannot be
any demarcation or delineation based upon the residence of the advocate.
50. Insofar as the Scheme is concerned, the Committee’s report is relied
upon to argue that the report recommended that the advocate has to be
registered with the BCD. Insofar as the voters list is concerned, the same
related to the Bar Association which is located within one of the Court
complexes in Delhi. It is not specified that the voter ID has to be showing
residence of Delhi. It is, thereafter, argued that there are various schemes
floated by the GNCTD, like the Delhi Government Employees’ Health
Scheme wherein medical facilities are made available to employees working
with the Delhi Government. In the FAQ questions 1 and 16, it is made clear
that the beneficiaries are those who work with the Delhi Government. Even
those beneficiaries who have settled outside Delhi, in the NCR region are
entitled to the benefits of the scheme. Thus, the NCR region has always been
contemplated to be within Delhi and in any event, even for such health
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 30 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
schemes, the fact that the employee resides outside Delhi does not disentitle
the employee of benefits under the Scheme.
51. Thereafter, other Schemes meant for migrant workers, mid-day-meal
schemes etc. are relied upon to argue that migrant workers belonging to
different States are also entitled to benefits under the scheme. Students may
be residing in Gurgaon or Noida but so long as they study in schools in
Delhi, they are also entitled to the benefit of the schemes. Similarly, in
order to avail of the reservation which is available for 85% Delhiites,
students who study in Delhi in class 11 and 12 are entitled to the benefit of
the scheme, irrespective of whether the said students reside within Delhi or
not.
52. A distinction is sought to be made insofar as advocates who may be
practicing in Delhi but not enrolled with the BCD are concerned. It is
submitted that even those advocates who may be residing in Delhi,
practicing in Delhi but not enrolled may not be entitled to the benefit of the
scheme and therefore, what is relevant is the enrolment with the BCD and
not residence in Delhi.
53. It is further urged that under the Rules of the BCD, so long as the
advocates are subject to the code of conduct prescribed by the BCD,
advocates would be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme. Those advocates
who are practicing in Delhi also render services to the citizens of Delhi, they
contribute to the revenue of the Delhi Government by paying court fee and
stamp duty etc. Thus, the said advocates hailing from Delhi
NCR/neighbouring areas cannot be discriminated against.
54. Finally, it is argued that the distinction sought to be made between
advocates who are residents of Delhi and those from the NCR
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 31 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
region/neighbouring areas is not based upon an intelligible differentia. There
is no nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved, the object being
to help advocates by providing social security. Enormous discrimination
would be caused if advocates who cannot afford residences in Delhi and
who belong to a lower financial strata or having financial disabilities are
deprived of the benefit of the scheme. A scheme being a social welfare
scheme should be meant for those advocates who have financial disabilities
rather than simply to those who can afford to buy residences in Delhi.
Though the issue is one of policy, since the Right to Health is recognised
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to which even a foreigner is
entitled, advocates from the NCR region/neighbouring areas ought not to be
deprived of the same.
Submissions of Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal), GNCTD
55. Mr. Rahul Mehra, ld. Senior Advocate along with Mr. Satyakam, ld.
ASC, have made submissions on behalf of the GNCTD. The following
broad propositions have been canvased before this Court:
(i) 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.
(ii) The question as to which category of lawyers are 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. The
two requirements of enrolment with the Bar Council of Delhi and
possessing a voter ID of Delhi is a decision which the Government
has taken in order to ensure that the benefits which are being extended
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 32 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
do not exceed the amount of the outlay. Both these issues are
questions of policy which cannot be interfered with by the Court.
(iii) In so far as the domicile issue is concerned, the question of
domicile is again a decision which the Government has taken in order
to give benefits to local citizens.
56. The submission of Mr. Mehra, ld. Standing Counsel, in respect of the
first proposition is that there has been no failure to perform a statutory duty
by the GNCTD. The Petitioners do not have any legal rights which they can
enforce by filing a writ of mandamus. The Scheme, being a welfare scheme
akin to schemes which are launched to benefit a section of the public, the
same cannot be enforced like a statutory right.
57. The submission is that the BCD has an obligation to take care of all
lawyers and this obligation cannot be transferred upon the GNCTD in the
manner in which it is sought to be done. Reliance is placed on the following
three judgments:-
(i) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, (2008) 2
SCC 280;
(ii) Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 627;
(iii) Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, (1973) 1 SCC 485

58. The next submission on behalf of the GNCTD is that the present
Scheme is completely independent of the duties and obligations of the BCD
under the Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001. Reliance is placed on the
provisions of this Act to highlight the fact that under Section 24 of this Act,
the primary purpose of creation of this fund was to enable availing of life
insurance policies and medical insurance policies for members of the
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 33 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
fund. However, though this Act was enacted way back in 2001, for almost
two decades, no insurance policy has been availed off for lawyers.
59. The Court then queried the Chairperson of the BCD, as also Mr.
Sangwan, ld. Counsel, as to whether any life insurance or other policy has
been availed of for advocates. However, their response is that due to the lack
of adequate funds no policy could be availed of since the enactment of this

particular statute.
60. It is submitted that it is only for enforcement of a statutory duty that a
writ is maintainable. Unless a statute imposes this legal duty and the writ
petitioner shows a legal right, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued.
61. In respect of the argument that the Chief Minister’s Advocates
Welfare Scheme is a policy matter, reference is made to the Cabinet decision
th th
dated 18 December, 2019 which was made public on 19 December, 2019.
As per the said decision, the proposal that was approved by the Cabinet was
contained in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the Cabinet note.
62. While referring to the note which was placed before the Cabinet, the
purpose of the scheme i.e., to benefit lawyers who play a central role in
various facets of life, is set out. It is highlighted that the purpose, as is
evident from the Cabinet Decision as well as the background note is to
recognize the role of lawyers in the strengthening of democracy and to
ensure that the amounts are properly utilised for the welfare of lawyers.
However, it is submitted that the term ‘practicing advocate’ in Scheme 1
and Scheme 2, has to be read along with paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, where it is
specifically mentioned that the scheme would apply to practicing advocates
who are enrolled with the BCD and are on the voters list of Delhi. Thus, the
word ‘practicing advocate’ cannot be read in isolation and the entire scheme
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 34 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
has to be read as a whole. The policy decision taken by the Cabinet was to
approve paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the note placed before it. Paragraph 7 of the
note clearly stipulates both these conditions as pre- conditions for being
eligible to avail of the scheme. Thus, it is submitted that reliance on the
word ‘practicing advocate’, which is being pressed into service in isolation,
would not be a tenable submission.
63. Moreover, it is submitted that a policy decision consists of two
separate steps. Firstly, 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. After receiving approvals from the
insurance companies as to the insurance premium that they would be
charging, the following four items were agreed to be introduced for the
welfare of advocates:
i) Group (Term) Insurance;
ii) Group Medi-claim Coverage;
iii) E-library; and
iv) Creche Facility.
64. The said four schemes are not the end in itself, however, the final
amount is Rs.50 crores within which these four schemes were fitted in order
to benefit lawyers. Thus, it is submitted that the twin policy decisions are;
one, Rs.50 crores being assigned as the maximum amount and secondly, the
four schemes which have been mentioned in the decision itself.
65. It is further submitted that the GNCTD consulted all the stake holders
in the matter and thereafter, a Committee was constituted, consisting of
Presidents of various Bar Associations, the Chairman of the Bar Council of
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 35 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Delhi and two other advocates, who would represent the interest of lawyers.
A twelve members committee was constituted under the convenorship of
Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate, who, at that time was the President of the
Supreme Court Bar Association. This Committee had, after considering the
entire matter, clearly concluded that the Scheme would be applicable to
40,115 advocates who are both verified on the BCD’s roll and who are on
the electoral roll. The mere fact that the list of advocates contained
advocates who are from NCR region/neighbouring areas would not by itself
make them eligible if the initial eligibility conditions, as approved by the
committee, were not satisfied.
66. Reliance is placed upon the declaration form for the welfare scheme
which asks for the voter ID card. This, according to Mr. Mehra, means that
only if the advocate is registered as a voter in Delhi, in terms of the policy
decision taken, can he/she be entitled to the benefit under the scheme.
67. Thus, on the question of policy, Mr. Mehra’s concluding submissions
are:
i) 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;
ii) the amount of Rs.50 crore was a sacrosanct amount. The said
amount is not a temporary amount which has been allocated but a sum
within which the benefits are to be made available;
iii) 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, recognizing their
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 36 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
contribution to society. Accordingly, it is submitted 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.
68. Heavy reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
D.P. Joshi v. State of M.B., AIR 1955 SC 334 in order to canvass the
proposition that a State Government can extend schemes on the basis of
residence. Thus, any scheme which is floated based on domicile or residence
would not violate any law, inasmuch as the classification based on residence
is perfectly valid and legal in the constitutional scheme.
69. It is further submitted, relying upon the judgment in State of A.P. v.
Nallamilli Rami Reddi, (2001) 7 SCC 708 that as long as the classification
is a permissible classification and is based on intelligible differentia, the
same ought to be upheld by the Court.
70. Further, it is submitted that the Committee’s recommendation is at
best a recommendation insofar as the GNCTD is concerned and the same
would not be binding. What would be binding is the finally approved
scheme, which requires that the name of the advocate appear in the voters
list in Delhi.
71. Thereafter, Mr. Mehra, ld. Senior counsel, highlights the issue as
raised in the Constitutional Bench judgment in State of (NCT of Delhi) v.
Union of India & Another, (2018) 8 SCC 501 to argue that executive power
of the Council of Ministers is co-extensive with the legislative power and in
th
view of entry 26, list III of the 7 Schedule to the Constitution of India, the
GNCTD has complete freedom to exercise its executive jurisdiction within
its territorial limits only and not beyond that.
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 37 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
72. It is finally argued that as per paragraphs 25 and 41 of the written
submission, that admissions to hospitals and to schools cannot be equated
with welfare schemes. Giving admission to non-residents of Delhi in
hospitals would constitute a part of right of life, however, the same standard
cannot be applied by the Court when the question is of extending a welfare
scheme to advocates who are non-residents of Delhi.
73. Finally, it is submitted that the initial proposal which was requested
from the GNCTD was for an outlay of Rs.5 crores, which was thereafter
increased to Rs.15 crores and finally to Rs.50 crores. Considering the
amount of premium which is now charged by the insurance companies, it is
submitted that the GNCTD cannot be forced to extend the insurance policies
to lawyers/advocates who are residing outside the National Capital Territory
of Delhi.
74. Insofar as the extension of the date for registration is concerned, Mr.
Mehra, ld. Sr. counsel submits that there were a total of 40,000 lawyers
which were part of the pool and approximately 37,145 lawyers had applied.
Out of them, 6,476 were duplicate and the remaining were 30,669. Thus, out
of the 40,000 pool almost 100% had already applied and hence, there is no
reason why the date needs to be extended further.
Submission of Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Advocate for the Union of India
75. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, ld. counsel appearing for the Union of India
submits that in these writ petitions, there are no reliefs sought against the
Union of India. Insofar as the Union of India is concerned, there is no
budgetary provision for contributing for the benefit of advocates from Delhi
or the NCR region/neighbouring areas. Moreover, no discrimination can be
made at this stage by the Union of India between advocates and other
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 38 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
professionals. Since the scope of the present writ is only related to the Chief
Minister’s Advocates Welfare Fund, the Union of India has no role to play.
Submission of Mr. Vaibhav Kalra and Mr. P.K.Dixit, Advocates
th
76. Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, ld. counsel points out order dated 28 August,
2020 wherein it is clearly noted that initially the tender was for 40,115
advocates and the said advocates included advocates from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas. It was only when the initial tender could not be
carried to its logical conclusion and the re-tender was done and the number
of lawyers was restricted.
77. Mr. P.K. Dixit, ld. counsel who is a new lawyer enrolled in
December, 2020 submits that he is a resident of Delhi and he has now been
enrolled with the BCD and one opportunity ought to be given to him to
register for the Scheme.

Analysis and Findings
78. During the pendency of the petitions, the Scheme has been rolled out
and insurance has been provided to a large number of advocates.
Considering the reliefs sought, the issues that now remain to be adjudicated
in these writ petitions are:
i. Whether advocates registered with the BCD who reside in the
NCR region/neighbouring areas are entitled to benefits under
the Scheme?
ii. Whether registration ought to be reopened to enable advocates
who missed the initial deadline to obtain benefit under the
Scheme?



W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 39 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Issue (i) - Whether advocates registered with the BCD who reside in the
NCR region/neighbouring areas are entitled to benefits under the
Scheme?

79. The profession of advocates is recognised by the Advocates Act,
1961. Under Section 2(a), an “advocate” means an advocate entered in any
roll under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. As per Section 2(d),
“bar council” means a bar council constituted under the Act. Most States
and Union Territories have separate bar councils. The “State Bar Council”
under Section 2(m) for Delhi is the Bar Council of Delhi. The BCD is
provided for under Section 3(f) as under:
“3. State Bar Councils.―(1) There shall be a Bar
Council—
…
(f) for the Union territory of Delhi, to be known as
the Bar Council of Delhi.
…”

80. The procedure for admission and enrolment of advocates is set out in
Chapter 3 of the Act. Under Section 17, every State Bar Council is required
to prepare and maintain the roll of advocates. The said roll would consist of
the names and addresses of all the persons who are admitted as advocates on
the roll of that State Bar Council. The roll of advocates is maintained on the
basis of seniority, which is determined on the basis of the date of enrolment
or admission of the advocate. Section 18 permits transfer of the name of the
advocate from one State roll to another. Under Section 24, any person can be
enrolled by the State Bar Council if the person is a citizen of India, has
completed 21 years of age, has obtained a degree in law which is recognised
by the Bar Council of India and fulfilled such other conditions as specified
in the Rules of the concerned State Bar Council. It is relevant to note that
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 40 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
under Section 24, in order to obtain enrolment in the roll of a State Bar
Council, the person need not be a resident of that particular State. Advocates
are the only class of persons who are entitled to practise law as per Section
81. Under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961, High Courts of the
respective States have the power to make rules that lay down the conditions
subject to which advocates would be permitted to practise in the High Court
and the courts subordinate thereto. This provision would be of some
significance and shall be discussed later.
82. Advocates who are on the roll of a State Bar Council are subject to the
supervision and disciplinary control of the said State Bar Council. The State
Bar Council has the power to entertain and consider complaints against an
advocate. Under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, upon consideration
of any complaint, the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council can
dismiss the complaint, reprimand the advocate or even resort to the extreme
step of removing the name of the advocate from the roll of advocates. If an
advocate’s name is removed from the roll of advocates by any State Bar
Council, no other bar council can permit such an advocate to be enrolled in
their bar council.
83. Apart from the disciplinary committees of the State Bar Councils, the
Bar Council of India (hereinafter, ‘BCI’) also has disciplinary powers over
advocates. In addition to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, the BCI
is governed by its own rules, namely, the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975,
which were last amended in 2020.
84. Insofar as the BCD is concerned, there are various rules which have
been enacted. The Bar Council of Delhi Rules, 1963 are quite extensive and
the relevant rules are set out below:
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 41 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
“115. Every advocate shall notify to the Council
from time to time any change of address and all
suspensions or assumptions of practice. Every
such intimation shall contain the roll number of
the advocate, the date of his enrolment, his address
and other necessary particulars.

…

120. The Council shall prepare and maintain a
Roll of Advocates in which shall be entered the
name, address and the date of enrolment of each
advocate and any action decided to be taken by the
Disciplinary Committee against such an advocate
from time to time .
…

123. In case of an advocate duly transferred to
the Bar Council of another State, his name shall be
removed from the roll and an intimation to that
effect shall be sent to the Bar Council of the State
to which he has been transferred as well as to the
Bar Council of India. In case of an advocate whose
name has been duly transferred from the Bar
Council of another State an entry to that effect,
maintaining his seniority as in the State from
which he has been transferred, shall be made in
the roll.
…

125. Subject to the provisions of section 21(I) of
the Act any dispute, arising in respect of the
seniority of any person on the roll of advocates
maintained by the Council shall be referred to the
Enrolment Committee which shall submit its report
to the Council. The decision of the Council thereon
shall be final.”

85. The declaration form to be filled by every person who intends to get
enrolled with the BCD requires the person to fill in their name, address, date
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 42 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
of birth etc. The form requires the advocate to express their intention to
practise as an advocate within the jurisdiction of the BCD. The relevant
paragraph of the said form is set out below:
“I intend to practise as an Advocate within the
jurisdiction of the Bar Council of Delhi and have
therefore to request you to enter my name and
address on the Roll of the Bar Council.”

86. In the application form to be filed with the BCD, the permanent
address as also the temporary/present address is sought. The other
declarations which are sought are that the person proposes to practice law
within the State of Delhi. An undertaking is given in the following terms:

“UNDERTAKINGS
…
(c) I do hereby declare and undertake that –
…
(iv) I intent to practice ordinarily and regularly
within the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of
Delhi.

(v) I shall inform the Bar Council of any change of
address of my residence or place of practice for
the proper maintenance of the roll and the voter’s
list.
…”


87. Apart from the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar
Council of Delhi Rules, 1963 the Bar Council of India has also enacted the
Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules,
2015 (hereinafter, “BCIPP Rules”) . Under Rule 5 of these rules, the BCI
issues a certificate of practice to advocates after they qualify the All India
Bar Examination. Under Rule 6, an advocate needs to be a member of the
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 43 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
bar association where he or she normally practices law. Under Rule 6.2, if
an advocate leaves one bar association and joins another, due to change of
place of practice or by reason of change of field of law, intimation of this
would need to be given to the State Bar Council. As per these Rules, the
verification of lawyers is conducted by the bar councils and the certificate of
practice is only valid for a period of five years.
88. A conjoint reading of the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, the
Bar Council of Delhi Rules, 1963 and the BCIPP Rules shows that insofar as
advocates are concerned, primacy is given to the place of practice and not to
the place of residence of the advocate. An advocate is entitled to register in
the State where he/she intends to primarily practice. The reason for this is
that an advocate may have a permanent place of residence in any part of the
country but choose to practice in a different geographical area. There are
advocates who may want to specialise before particular forums and may
choose to reside in the place where that court, forum, tribunal, authority etc.
is located. Financial constraints could also compel advocates to not live in a
metropolitan area but still practice in the said metropolitan area. So long as
the advocate intends to regularly practise in a particular geographical
territory, he/she is entitled to enrol with the Bar Council of that State/ Union
Territory. Upon enrolling with a particular Bar Council, the advocate is
governed and controlled by the rules and regulations of the said Bar Council.
In none of these statutory provisions or rules is any importance given to the
place of residence of the advocate. The address of the advocate is sought
only as a means of information and the same can be changed with intimation
being given to the Bar Council. Thus, the place of residence of the advocate
does not affect the status of the advocate or take away the right of the
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 44 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
advocate to practise in a particular jurisdiction.
Legal practice in Delhi and the NCR region/neighbouring areas
89. The country’s capital Delhi enjoys a unique position, especially in
respect of the practice of law. The physical location of the Supreme Court in
Delhi is a major focal point for advocates from across the country. It is the
aspiration of most advocates to be able to practise in Delhi. A large number
of specialised fora, authorities etc., where advocates can practise, are also
located in Delhi. The High Court of Delhi and the District Courts in Delhi
attract a large quantum of important commercial litigation, owing to the
economic activity in and around Delhi. The quantum of non-commercial
litigation in the Courts is also quite high.
90. The city of Delhi itself is home to a large number of families which
have moved here during partition and families which have migrated to Delhi
due to professional or employment compulsions. There are also a large
number of first-generation lawyers who have shifted to Delhi in order to
achieve their aspirations. Delhi, by itself, is an extremely cosmopolitan city
and the profession of law is no exception. Advocates in Delhi hail from all
across the country and have achieved great laurels. The Bar in Delhi is
extremely cosmopolitan in nature and has accepted persons from all over
India with an open heart.
91. It is common knowledge that the people who are employed in Delhi
live in the outskirts of Delhi, which includes the States of Uttar Pradesh
(U.P.), Punjab, Rajasthan and Haryana, due to various reasons including
economic and financial reasons. However, their entire career is based in
Delhi. This character of Delhi is, in fact, recognised while constituting the
National Capital Region, which includes the Union Territory of Delhi and
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 45 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
areas from Haryana, U.P., Rajasthan, etc. The National Capital Region
Planning Board Act, 1985 has been amended from time to time to add
various territories into the NCR region. Delhi is no longer simply the Union
Territory of Delhi but includes the NCR region. The people residing in the
NCR region/neighbouring areas contribute immensely to the progress of
Delhi. It is estimated that a large percentage of employees working in Delhi,
including in the Central and State Government, as also private
establishments, do not reside in Delhi but in the NCR region/ neighbouring
areas.
92. Specifically in the case of advocates, a substantial number of
advocates who primarily practice in Delhi live in the NCR
region/neighbouring areas, including in areas such as Noida, Gurugram,
Sonepat, Rohtak, Faridabad, Ghaziabad, some areas of Punjab etc. They
commute from these areas to Delhi almost on a daily basis. Such advocates
are registered with the BCD and are also members of the Bar associations of
the court complexes where they practice. They play an important role in
serving the citizenry in Delhi and assisting courts in Delhi for the
adjudication of disputes. They also contribute to the revenue stream of the
Delhi Government by practising in Delhi. They may also have
chambers/offices in various court complexes in Delhi.
93. The practice of law in Delhi is pivoted on appearing before various
courts and forums in Delhi. The advocates’ place of residence has no
bearing on this whatsoever. Moreover, the place of residence of the advocate
is also not set in stone. Depending upon the income levels of the advocate,
the advocate may move to Delhi. It is a matter of common knowledge that
not all advocates can afford housing in Delhi and may, therefore, choose to
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 46 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
reside in the NCR region/neighbouring areas. However, the character of
their practice, being essentially in Delhi, would not change.
94. It is in the backdrop of this legislative scheme and the nature of Delhi
NCR that the issue in respect of lawyers based in the NCR
region/neighbouring areas is to be adjudicated.
Legal issue raised:
95. The question as to whether the Scheme can be restricted to advocates
who have voter ID cards of Delhi has various legal dimensions. The
fundamental submission of the GNCTD is that the Scheme being a welfare
scheme and not emanating as a statutory right, it is up to the Government to
craft it in whatever manner it deems fit. If the Government wishes to restrict
the benefits of the Scheme to a sub-classification of advocates registered
with the BCD as also residing in Delhi, the Court cannot interfere in this
policy decision.
96. On the question whether Courts can interfere in policy decisions of
the Government, the law is well settled by various judgments of the
Supreme Court, including Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of
India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v.
Union of India, (2005) 3 SCC 369 and Directorate of Film Festivals v.
Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737 . In Directorate of Film Festivals
(supra) , the Supreme Court has observed as under:
“16. The scope of judicial review of governmental
policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot
act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness,
suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are
courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy
which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope
of judicial review when examining a policy of the
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 47 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Government is to check whether it violates the
fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the
provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any
statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts
cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it
is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or
wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy,
and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the
subject of judicial review (vide Asif Hameed v. State of
J&K [1989 Supp (2) SCC 364] , Sitaram Sugar Co.
Ltd. v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 223] , Khoday
Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1996) 10 SCC
304] , BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of
India [(2002) 2 SCC 333] , State of Orissa v. Gopinath
Dash [(2005) 13 SCC 495 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1225]
and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) v. State of
A.P. [(2006) 4 SCC 162] )”

From the above it is clear that Courts may interfere in a policy decision of
the Government,
• if the same violates the fundamental rights of the citizens,

• is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution,
• is opposed to any statutory provision or
• is manifestly arbitrary.
97. This Court is of the opinion that the submission that Courts cannot at
all interfere in policy matters or fix the contours of such policy decisions,
would thus not be tenable. 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. 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.
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 48 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
98. In the backdrop of this legal position, whether the sub-classification
of advocates registered with the BCD would be permissible in law is the
question. In order to decide this issue, the Court would have to consider the
object sought to be achieved by the Scheme and whether, considering the
object, the sub-classification which has been carved out is based on an
intelligible differentia. If the said sub-classification is not based on an
intelligible differentia, then the said condition would be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India and the Scheme would be liable to be
extended to lawyers from the NCR region/neighbouring areas.
Object of the Scheme:
99. The object of the Scheme which is the subject matter of the present
writ petition is contained in the following documents:
th
a. Order dated 29 November 2019 constituting the Committee
b. The Report of the Committee
c. The background note put up by the Minister (Law), GNCTD
th
d. Cabinet Decision No. 2794 dated 18 December 2019
approving the Scheme
100. A perusal of the above four documents shows that the stated object
sought to be achieved by the Scheme is the recognition of the role played by
advocates in society and the legal profession in particular. The Scheme is for
the welfare of advocates. The note put up by the Minister (Law), GNCTD
before the Council of Ministers again states the object of the Scheme to be
to recognise the following roles played by advocates in society:
• drafting the Constitution of India
• protecting the basic rights of the citizenry

• upholding the concepts of secularism, democracy and egalitarianism
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 49 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
• leading and reforming the nation
• fighting against wrongs and nurturing an environment which is just
and strong and conducive for constructive dialogue among citizens
• building a strong democracy
• encouraging active citizen engagement and participation in nation
building.
• fostering a society which is equitable and conscientious.
101. In recognition of the above stated roles played by advocates, the Chief
Minister of Delhi announced the Scheme with an outlay of Rs.50 crores to
be utilised for the welfare of the legal community. All other documents
placed on record by the GNCTD, including the minutes of meeting,
primarily relate to the implementation of the Scheme as conceived in the
above four documents.
102. A perusal of the stated objects for which the Scheme was conceived
and promulgated shows that the Scheme has the intention of recognising the
positive role played by advocates in society. Nowhere do these documents
provide a reason for the Scheme to be restricted to those advocates who have
a voter ID card of Delhi. The Scheme has not been announced for advocates
who constitute the electorate for the GNCTD but for recognising the
contribution of advocates in bettering the lives of the citizenry of Delhi and
the practice of law in Delhi.
103. A perusal of the report of the Committee shows that the Committee
never considered voter ID cards of Delhi as being an essential pre-condition
for availing of benefits under the Scheme. The pre-condition that the names
of the advocates should be in the voters list of Delhi is seen for the first time
in the background note put up by the Minister (Law), GNCTD before the
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 50 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Council of Ministers, GNTCD. There is no discussion in the entire
background note as to the reason why the Scheme should be restricted to
only those advocates whose names are in the voters list of Delhi. Apart from
the above mentioned four documents, even contemporaneous documents and
events such as the Budget Speech 2019-20, do not restrict the Scheme’s
applicability to residents of Delhi:
“105. On the request of the Supreme Court, the High
Court and the District Courts Bar Associations and
realising the struggle and difficulties of young
Lawyers, our Government is proposing a new scheme
in 2019-20 i.e., “Chief Minister Advocates’ Welfare
Scheme”, for which, an amount of Rs.50 crore is
provided in the budget. This fund will be utilised for
various social security measures: life insurance,
medical facility, scholarship etc. for the needy
advocates and their family members. This is a
remarkable initiative for the legal community and shall
pave the way for the welfare of legal professionals in
the country.”

104. The stand of the GNCTD that the pre-condition of having a voter ID
card of Delhi is to honour advocates who are residents of Delhi and intend to
exercise the right of adult suffrage and not only advocates practicing in
Delhi, is belied by the fact that the documents referred to above do not
mention this being the object anywhere. Further, in its own counter affidavit,
the GNCTD has stated as under:
“XI. It is submitted that the Voter Identity card is a
valid residence proof to ensure that the applicant
is a resident of Delhi which is apart from the
requirement that the applicant practices in the
Courts of Delhi.”

105. Thus, as is clear from the GNCTD’s counter affidavit and all the other
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 51 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
documents referred to above, the voter ID card of Delhi was to merely act as
proof of residence. However, the stand of the GNCTD has changed during
the course of hearing to expand that the Voter ID Card has been added to
promote democratic ideals within the legal community, residing in Delhi. In
effect therefore the argument is that it is only meant for advocates who form
the electorate for the GNCTD. This justification however does not appear in
any of the base documents referred to above.
Rationale behind the sub-classification
th
106. The condition recognised in Cabinet Decision No. 2794 dated 18
December 2019, which approved point number 7 of the background note put
up by the Minister (Law), GNCTD, i.e., that the names of the advocates
should appear in the voters list of Delhi, does not find any linkage or
connection with the stated object of the Scheme. Advocates who are
registered with the BCD primarily practise in Delhi and contribute to the
administration of justice in Delhi. They also contribute to the revenue of
Delhi and service the citizens of Delhi. Merely because they reside outside
the geographical boundaries of the Union Territory of Delhi does not mean
that they do not play the positive role which the Scheme seeks to recognise.
Advocates who may be residing outside Delhi but practise in Delhi are
intricately and intrinsically linked with the dispensation of justice in Delhi.
107. It is the admitted position that advocates registered with the BCD
would not be entitled to benefits of any schemes launched by other State Bar
Councils. In fact, advocates registered with the BCD are required to engage
local advocates in the States of U.P., Punjab, Haryana etc., if they wish to
file any case or appear before the Courts in those States. The focus of
advocates registered with the BCD is to pursue their profession in Delhi
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 52 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
before the various courts and fora in Delhi. Advocates registered with the
BCD have given a declaration that they would primarily practise in Delhi.
Under such circumstances, the pre-condition that the advocate would have to
be in the voters list of Delhi is clearly not connected with the object of the
Scheme and, in fact, contradicts the purpose of the Scheme.
108. The objects of the Scheme, which are enumerated above, all relate to
the practice of advocates in Delhi and not to their role as voters in Delhi.
The Scheme centers around the professional contribution of advocates, not
their role as citizens of Delhi who participate in the election process.
109. In the seminal judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West
Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 , the Supreme Court has laid
down the test for determining whether a classification is valid or not. The
Supreme Court has observed as under:
"55. … It is now well established that while Article
14 is designed to prevent a person or class of persons
from being singled out from others similarly situated
for the purpose of being specially subjected to
discriminating and hostile legislation, it does not
insist on an “abstract symmetry” in the sense that
every piece of legislation must have universal
application. All persons are not, by nature,
attainment or circumstances, equal and the varying
needs of different classes of persons often require
separate treatment and, therefore, the protecting
clause has been construed as a guarantee against
discrimination amongst equals only and not as taking
away from the State the power to classify persons for
the purpose of legislation. This classification may be
on different bases. It may be geographical or
according to objects or occupations or the like. Mere
classification, however, is not enough to get over the
inhibition of the Article. The classification must not
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 53 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it
must not only be based on some qualities or
characteristics which are to be found in all the
persons grouped together and not in others who are
left out but those qualities or characteristics must
have a reasonable relation to the object of the
legislation . In order to pass the test, two conditions
must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification
must be founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes those that are grouped together from
others and (2) that that differentia must have a
rational relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the
classification and the object of the Act are distinct
things and what is necessary is that there must be a
nexus between them….”

110. The test laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar (supra) has been applied in
innumerable judgments by the Supreme Court and various High Courts. In
each case, the question is whether the class of persons who are grouped
together have been rightly grouped together or not and what is the rationale
behind such grouping in the context of the object sought to be achieved.
Recently in Union of India v. N.S. Rathnam , (2015) 10 SCC 681, the

Supreme Court has explained the test as follows:
“13. It is, thus, beyond any pale of doubt that the
justiciability of particular notification can be tested
on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Article 14, which is treated as basic feature of the
Constitution, ensures equality before the law or
equal protection of laws. Equal protection means
the right to equal treatment in similar
circumstances, both in the privileges conferred and
in the liabilities imposed. Therefore, if the two
persons or two sets of persons are similarly
situated/placed, they have to be treated equally. At
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 54 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
the same time, the principle of equality does not
mean that every law must have universal application
for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or
circumstances in the same position. It would mean
that the State has the power to classify persons for
legitimate purposes. The legislature is competent to
exercise its discretion and make classification. Thus,
every classification is in some degree likely to
produce some inequality but mere production of
inequality is not enough. Article 14 would be treated
as violated only when equal protection is denied
even when the two persons belong to same
class/category. Therefore, the person challenging
the act of the State as violative of Article 14 has to
show that there is no reasonable basis for the
differentiation between the two classes created by
the State. Article 14 prohibits class legislation and
not reasonable classification.
14. What follows from the above is that in order to
pass the test of permissible classification two
conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the
classification must be founded on an intelligible
differential which distinguishes persons or things
that are grouped together from others left out of the
group; and (ii) that, that differential must have a
rational relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the statute in question. If the Government fails to
support its action of classification on the touchstone
of the principle whether the classification is
reasonable having an intelligible differentia and a
rational basis germane to the purpose, the
classification has to be held as arbitrary and
discriminatory. In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana ,
this aspect is highlighted by the Court in the
following manner:
“10. In the counter and the note of submission
filed on behalf of the appellants it is averred,
inter alia, that the Land Acquisition Collector
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 55 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
on considering the objections filed by the
appellants had recommended to the State
Government for exclusion of the properties of
Appellants 1 and 3 to 6 and the State
Government had not accepted such
recommendations only on the ground that the
constructions made by the appellants were of
‘B’ or ‘C’ class and could not be easily
amalgamated into the developed colony which
was proposed to be built. There is no
averment in the pleadings of the respondents
stating the basis of classification of structures
as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ class, nor is it stated how
the amalgamation of all ‘A’ class structures
was feasible and possible while those of ‘B’
and ‘C’ class structures was not possible. It is
not the case of the State Government and also
not argued before us that there is no policy
decision of the Government for excluding the
lands having structures thereon from
acquisition under the Act. Indeed, as noted
earlier, in these cases the State Government
has accepted the request of some landowners
for exclusion of their properties on this very
ground. It remains to be seen whether the
purported classification of existing structures
into ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ class is a reasonable
classification having an intelligible differentia
and a rational basis germane to the purpose.
If the State Government fails to support its
action on the touchstone of the above
principle, then this decision has to be held as
arbitrary and discriminatory. It is relevant to
note here that the acquisition of the lands is
for the purpose of planned development of the
area which includes both residential and
commercial purposes. That being the purpose
of acquisition, it is difficult to accept the case
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 56 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
of the State Government that certain types of
structures which according to its own
classification are of ‘A’ class can be allowed
to remain while other structures situated in
close vicinity and being used for same
purposes (residential or commercial) should
be demolished. At the cost of repetition, it may
be stated here that no material was placed
before us to show the basis of classification of
the existing structures on the lands proposed
to be acquired. This assumes importance in
view of the specific contention raised on
behalf of the appellants that they have pucca
structures with RC roofing, mosaic flooring,
etc. No attempt was also made from the side
of the State Government to place any
architectural plan of different types of
structures proposed to be constructed on the
land notified for acquisition in support of its
contention that the structures which exist on
the lands of the appellants could not be
amalgamated into the plan.”
18. We are conscious of the principle that the
difference which will warrant a reasonable
classification need not be great. However, it has to
be shown that the difference is real and substantial
and there must be some just and reasonable relation
to the object of legislation or notification.
Classification having regard to microscopic
differences is not good. To borrow the phrase from
the judgment in Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA : “To
overdo classification is to undo equality.”

111. The crux of the classification test is that if there is no rational nexus
between the grouping and the object, and the same is found to be arbitrary,
the classification is unreasonable and is liable to be struck down.
112. On behalf of the GNCTD, reliance has been placed on D.P. Joshi v.
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 57 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
State of M.B., AIR 1955 SC 334 , which recognises domicile as a valid basis
for classification. It is, however, noticed that in the said decision, the
domicile test has been applied in the context of admission to educational
institutions etc., and not in respect of social welfare schemes. Moreover, in
the present case, the Scheme is not an ordinary scheme, it is a scheme which
is meant to recognise the role of advocates in the practice of law. This role is
to be gauged not on the basis of the place of residence of the advocate but on
the basis of their place of practice, as the former has no recognition
whatsoever in the statutes governing the practice of law. The submission on
behalf of the GNCTD that the conditions to be imposed in the Scheme being
one of governmental policy, the Court ought not to interfere in the same,
would not be correct if the conditions are found to be discriminatory or
arbitrary.
113. Furthermore, the GNCTD had accepted the recommendation of the
Committee for providing life insurance and health insurance policies for
advocates and their families. Insurance is inextricably linked with
healthcare. Though such a scheme, which is in the nature of a special
scheme for advocates, cannot by itself be demanded by advocates as a
matter of right, once the Scheme is promulgated and is being implemented
as a health related scheme, it takes the colour of a scheme which is intending
to protect `Right to life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is
the settled position in law that Right to health and healthcare is a part of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as held in LIC of India & Ors. v.
CERC & Ors., AIR 1995 SCC 1811, Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. ESIC, AIR
1996 SC 3261 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jay Prakash
Tayal, 247 (2018) DLT 379 .
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 58 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
114. A Division Bench of this Court in Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group
v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2018) 253 DLT 466 has, in fact,
struck down a similar condition while dealing with hospital services for non-
Delhi residents. The Court has clearly observed that the condition imposed
by a Government hospital in Delhi that its services would not be available
for a patient who does not hold a voter ID card of Delhi is liable to be struck
down. The observations of the Court are as under:
“9. … The circular therefore clearly creates two
categories of patients with two different procedures
and systems for treatment and consequently the
medical facilities available in the hospital to these
two categories of patients differ. There is nothing to
indicate as to what is the difference between these
two categories of patients. The only differentiation
indicated in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents and what is made out from the circular
is that one category of persons have a Voter ID
Card issued by a particular authority classifying
them to be voters of a particular constituency or
area within the territory of Delhi and others do not
have such a Voter ID Card. The question is - Is this
a reasonable basis for classifying identically
situated citizens for the purpose of extending
medical facility in a hospital? Providing medical
facilities to each and every citizen is a
constitutional responsibility, and the State may in
the matter of providing medical facilities classify
citizens into different categories by adopting a
principle of permissible classification which has
nexus to the purpose to be achieved. In the present
case, the classification is based not on the basis of
any scientific or intelligential classification or
system but it is based on availability of a Voter ID
Card and the purpose to be achieved by this
classification is to decongest the hospital and to
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 59 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
bring in a system of discipline in the functioning of
the hospital and running it in a smooth manner. In
our considered view, neither is the classification
reasonable, is not based on any justifiable reason
nor is the nexus said to be achieved a reasonable
one.
10. Health care facility and its access to a citizen is
a right available under the Constitution and Article
21 of the Constitution imposes a duty on the
Government to take whatever steps are necessary to
ensure that every citizen has free and fair access to
health facilities and treatment in a Government
hospital. In fact, Article 21 of the Constitution not
only imposes upon the State a constitutional
obligation but also a legal obligation to ensure
access to treatment, medicine and other facilities in
a hospital. In the case of State of Maharashtra v.
Chandrabhan Tale; (1983) 3 SCC 387 : AIR 1983
SC 803, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution means something more than a mere
survival or an animal like existence. It includes all
other aspects of life which go to make a man's life
meaningful, complete and worth living and all such
requirements which are required to make a living
life meaningful are the integral components of the
right to life. There are catena of judgments which
reiterate the fact that right to medical aid is a
fundamental right of all citizens guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution and the Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Confederation of Ex- Servicemen Assns. v. Union of
India, (2006) 8 SCC 399 has evaluated the
aforesaid principle. It is also a well settled
principle of law that non-availability of finance
infrastructure facilities cannot be a ground to be
put forth by a State to say that medical facilities
cannot be made available.
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 60 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
11. In the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor
Samity v. State of West Bengal (supra), denial of
emergency medical aid in a Government hospital
was classified as violating the mandate of Article
21 of the Constitution and while considering the
same in Para 16 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
laid down the principles that financial resources
cannot be a constraint in the matter of providing
medical facilities to a citizen. …
13. The State cannot avoid or shirk away from this
constitutional obligation on account of financial
constraint or non-availability of facilities etc. If we
analyse the justification given by the State
Government in the present case, it would be seen
that the State is shirking away from discharging its
constitutional obligation and liability by contending
lack of facilities like infrastructure, manpower and
law and order situation created by outburst of
population, the number of patients coming to the
hospital for treatment. In our considered view, this
is not permissible. A State is obliged and mandated
to provide all such facilities as are to be provided
to a citizen, particularly, the requirement envisaged
under Article 21 of the Constitution and the reasons
given before us cannot be substantial or reasonable
reasons for shirking away from discharging this
constitutional liability.”

115. The GNCTD cannot impose the condition of residence in Delhi to
advocates and not to its own employees. In fact such a condition is not
imposed by the GNCTD on its own employees for whom it launched a
Health Scheme. The relevant FAQs relied upon on behalf of the Petitioners,
are set out below:
“Q1: What is this “Delhi Government Employees
Health Scheme” all about?
• Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme is
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 61 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
a welfare scheme of Delhi Government for
providing comprehensive medical facilities to its
beneficiaries. The scheme is based on CGHS
pattern and generally follows CGHS rates and
provisions.
…
Q16: Is the scheme benefits available to pensioners
residing outside Delhi/NCR also?
• The beneficiaries who travel/settle outside
Delhi/NCR, may avail non-emergent treatment
directly from any Govt./Govt. empanelled
private hospital. However, the expenditure
incurred on such treatment will be reimbursed
by concerned department, where beneficiary is
working or retired from, as per CGHS approved
rates of that city/nearest CGHS covered city
centre then rates of that State hospital or CGHS
rates of that city, whichever are less are
reimbursable.”

From the FAQs relied upon by the Petitioners it is clear that employees of
the Delhi government are entitled to benefits of various schemes, without
any distinction carved out on the basis of residence. There is no reason why
the same principle ought not to be applied in respect of advocates.
116. From the above discussion it is firstly clear that the 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. The Scheme carves out a distinction within advocates registered with
the BCD, between those advocates who are residents of Delhi and those who
are not. The Scheme is extended to the former and not to the latter. The said
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 62 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
classification does not have a rational nexus with the object of the Scheme
which is to recognise the contribution of advocates to the practice of law in
Delhi. The unique nature of the capital city of Delhi and the National Capital
region is that several advocates primarily practising in Delhi’s courts and
tribunals and are also voters in Bar Associations may reside in and around
Delhi. To exclude such advocates would be unreasonable and contrary to the
object of the Scheme itself. In view of the above, this Court holds that the
condition that advocates enrolled with the BCD should also be in the voters
list of Delhi for being eligible to avail of the benefits of the Scheme would
run foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the understanding
of the GNCTD itself was that all advocates who are members of the BCD
would be entitled to benefits under the Scheme, which is evident from the
first NIT where the base number of advocates was considered as 40,115. It is
not in dispute that this number included advocates from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas. Moreover, in the documents which have been
placed before the Court, no reason has been provided for the imposition of
the pre-condition that advocates must be in the voters list of Delhi.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the said condition and the resultant
classification has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the
Scheme and is thus discriminatory and arbitrary.
The Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001
117. This Court is, however, conscious of the fact that the Advocates
Welfare Fund Act, 2001 has not been implemented till date. The purpose of
enactment of the said Act was to provide social security, especially to junior
lawyers, indigent and disabled lawyers. The provisions in the various Bar
Council statutes were considered insufficient to provide financial assistance
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 63 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
and launch welfare schemes for indigent, disabled or other advocates. The
Act contemplates the creation of a `Welfare Fund’ for advocates and the
constitution of a trustee committee for the implementation of the fund.
Section 24 envisages obtaining of insurance for members of the fund. The
said provision reads:
“24. Group Life Insurance for members of Fund and
other benefits.— The Trustee Committee may, for the
welfare of the members of the Fund,—
(a) obtain, from the Life Insurance Corporation of
India or any other insurer, policies of Group Insurance
on the life of the members of the Fund; or
…”
118. The fund is overseen by the BCD in Delhi. When queried, the Court
was informed by ld. counsels for the BCD, that though 20 years have passed
since the enactment of this statute, group insurance of any form, for
advocates registered with BCD, has not been possible due to the lack of
adequate funds. It is stated that the BCD now gives out sums of money as
compensation in the case of death and some health related emergency,
however, the same is not uniform and depends upon the facts and
circumstances of the concerned advocate. It is thus clear that the Advocates
Welfare Fund Act, 2001 has not been able to achieve insurance for the entire
group of advocates enrolled with the BCD.
119. In this context, the Scheme floated by the GNCTD deserves to be
lauded for recognising the need of advocates who belong to various strata of
society for having insurance for themselves and their families. Since the
time the Scheme was announced in December, 2019, though there were a
few impediments in the implementation of the same, during the pendency of
these petitions, a substantial number of advocates enrolled with the BCD
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 64 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
with voter ID cards of Delhi have already availed of the Scheme. Thus, the
Scheme is already having a practical impact on the lives of advocates
practising in Delhi, especially during the pandemic.
th
120. Vide order dated 4 March, 2021, the BCD was asked to disclose the
funds available with it. The status report submitted reads as under:
“1. Post the enactment of the Advocates’
Welfare Fund Act, 2001, the details of annual
amount collected by the Bar Council of Delhi
under the said Act, on yearly basis since 2001 is
annexed herewith as Annexure-1 .

2. The details of total amount disbursed on an
annual basis to advocates who are in need of
medical or any other form of benefits, or any ex-
gratia payment made to any member of the Bar
Council of Delhi or to the family of such member is
annexed herewith as Annexure-2 .

3. The details of corpus of the Bar Council of
Delhi, which exists as on today collected under the
Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001, for the
welfare of the advocates enrolled with the Bar
Council of Delhi, is annexed herewith as
Annexure-3 .”
Annexure-1








W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 65 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
Annexure-2














Annexure-3










W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 66 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
From the above extracts it is clear that the funds mentioned above are details
of funds collected under the Advocates Welfare Act, 2001. The BCD, under
the statutes also has other sources of funds for e.g., funds generated from
registration/enrolment of advocates.

Issue (ii) - Whether registration ought to be reopened to enable advocates
who missed the initial deadline to obtain benefit under the Scheme?

121. Insofar as the re-opening of registration for new advocates is
concerned, a proper scheme would have to be evolved. Re-opening of the
registration, for the current year, would not be possible considering that this
is the first year of the implementation of the Scheme and the number of
advocates who were considered by the Committee in late 2019 and early
2020 was already frozen. For the future, however, registration would have to
be re-opened.
122. Upon extension of the Scheme to advocates from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas, newly enrolled advocates and advocates who
may register afresh for the Scheme having been enrolled post the deadline of
2019, the number of advocates who may become eligible may increase
considerably. At the moment, the stand of the GNCTD is that only Rs.50
crores has been fixed as the outlay for the purpose of this Scheme. With the
increase in the number of advocates that is expected every year and taking
into consideration the pandemic, as also the inflationary trends, it is hoped
and expected that the GNCTD would be able to increase the outlay of the
Scheme from year to year. However, considering that the total outlay at the
moment is only Rs.50 crores, the Scheme having been extended to all
advocates who are enrolled with the BCD, while availing the insurance for
such advocates, there could be some deficit of funds.
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 67 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
123. From the data filed by the BCD, it is clear that the BCD has funds to
contribute to the Scheme, though the same may not be fully sufficient to
fund the entire Scheme. The Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001 having
been enacted for the purpose of welfare of Advocates, this Court is of the
opinion that to the extent possible, the said Fund ought to be utilised to
support the Scheme for insurance. In the past, in W.P.(C)
6705/2014 titled KR Chitra v. Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee
& Ors. , concerns have been expressed by this Court on the manner of
utilization of funds collected by the BCD under the Advocates Welfare Fund
Act, 2001. In order to ensure that the utilization of funds is streamlined and
the purpose for which the fund was created is at least partially satisfied, the
BCD would be liable to share some part of the responsibility for insurance
of advocates. Some of the Petitioners and their counsels have also expressed
willingness to contribute some part of the premium. In a group insurance
scheme of such a big scale, insurance companies are likely to provide
substantial benefits of lower premia, as is evident from the insurance already
availed of for advocates from the LIC and NIACL. The annual premium
amount for each advocate for both life insurance and Mediclaim for four
members of the family i.e., advocate, spouse and two dependent children up
to the age of 25 years, is in the range of Rs.14,000/-. Thus, the burden on
each advocate, even if some contribution is made by them, is not likely to be
very high. Thus, the BCD either by itself or by receiving contributions from
the advocates themselves ought to willingly share the burden.
CONCLUSIONS & DIRECTIONS:
124. In view of the above discussion, the following are the conclusions and
directions:
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 68 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
a. The Chief Minister’s Advocates Welfare Scheme (`Scheme’)
announced by the GNCTD is a Scheme that has a laudable objective
of recognising the role of lawyers in protecting the rights of citizens
and their constructive role in society. It is also in recognition of the
role played by advocates and their contribution to the legal profession.
The Scheme has, with this objective already enabled insurances for
thousands of advocates in Delhi and has provided relief and succour
to them especially during the pandemic. However, the condition in the
Scheme that it would be applicable only to residents in Delhi with
Voter IDs, is held to be discriminatory and arbitrary as the sub-
classification from amongst the advocates enrolled with the Bar
Council of Delhi, has no rational nexus with the object to be achieved.
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;
b. 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. The GNCTD has already spent approximately
Rs.40 crores to enable advocates to avail of the insurance policies.
Out of the total number of advocates for whom policies have already
procured, there are 5,044 advocates from the NCR
region/neighbouring areas within the verified list of advocates for
whom premium has already been paid. They shall enjoy the benefits
of the Scheme. All such further eligible advocates, who had registered
within the deadlines prescribed, as per this judgement, who have been
left out shall now be included and the policies/coverage, on the same
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 69 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
terms, for the remainder period of the current year, shall be procured
st
from the LIC and NIACL by 31 July 2021. Only the pro-rata
premium would be liable to be paid by the GNCTD to the insurance
companies, which the insurance companies had agreed to, during the
course of hearing.
c. Insofar as the future years are concerned, since the pool of advocates
has been increased, the total premium for life and Mediclaim
insurance, may be more than the budget outlay of Rs.50 crores. The
GNCTD cannot be made to solely bear the burden of providing the
insurance premium, though it is urged that the outlay may be
increased depending upon the requirements, taking inflationary trends
etc., into consideration. The BCD which has been unable to provide
for group insurance for advocates, ought to complement the efforts of
the GNCTD which has clearly taken the position that the issue is not
being treated in an adversarial manner. Thus, the deficit on a year-to-
year basis, beyond the budgeted amount of the GNCTD, shall be
funded by the BCD.
d. For the said purpose, the BCD may source the funds in the following
manner. It is -
• Free to utilize its own funds, including the funds collected
under the Advocates’ Welfare Act, 2001.

• Free to seek any voluntary contribution from Senior advocates
and other financially well-off advocates, who may be willing to
contribute for the betterment of the legal community.

• The BCD may, if the need so arises, collect some part of the
premium from the advocates who are beneficiaries of the
Scheme.
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 70 of 71

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55


125. 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.
126. The Law Secretary of the GNCTD and the Chairman Bar Council of
Delhi shall be responsible for working out the modalities of the Scheme.
Both the GNCTD and the BCD shall appoint Nodal Officers to coordinate
with each other so as to streamline the implementation of the Scheme. The
GNCTD, after consulting the BCD, would be free to decide on the nature of
the Scheme to be availed of from the insurance companies, either on an
annual basis or on a periodic basis such as three years or five years, so that
the annual premia can be duly scaled down. The new scheme in terms of the
th
present judgment shall accordingly be announced by 30 September, 2021,
after consultation with the BCD and insurance companies. Upon
announcement of the new scheme, fresh registrations for advocates shall be
opened.
127. The writ petitions, and all pending applications are disposed of in the
above terms. Parties are permitted to approach this Court for clarification or
further directions, if the need so arises.
128. The Court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by all
the Senior counsels, Advocates and parties who appeared in these petitions.


PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JULY 12, 2021/ dj/T
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 71 of 71