CM Advocates Welfare Scheme: Delhi High Court notice in plea to open portal for registration of advocates

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice in a petition challenging a single-judge order which directed the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) to contribute funds for insurance and other benefits to advocates under the Chief Minister’s Advocates Welfare Scheme (Kapil Goyal v. GNCTD and Ors)..The Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice to the Central and Delhi governments as well as Life Insurance Corporation of India. The case is now listed for further hearing on December 1, when similar matters will be taken up..Advocate Kapil Goyal had challenged the judgment passed by Justice Prathiba Singh on July 12, 2021, which held that since the BCD has failed to provide any group insurance for advocates, it ought to complement the efforts of the Delhi government. Justice Singh had thus directed BCD to fund the deficit beyond the budgeted amount of the government on a year-to-year basis. The Delhi government had budgeted an amount of ₹50 crore for the insurance of advocates under the scheme.Advocate KC Mittal appeared for the appellant today. .The High Court had also ruled that the Chief Minister's Advocates’ Welfare Scheme must be extended to all lawyers registered with the BCD irrespective of whether their place of residence is in Delhi or the surrounding National Capital Region (NCR)..The petition stated that the directions issued by the single-judge are “totally perverse, arbitrary, baseless and contrary to the records”. It also challenged the categorization of advocates by the Delhi government by which only advocates who are registered with the BCD and are present on Delhi’s electoral list will be eligible to avail the insurance. Though Justice Singh had said that this sub-classification has no rational basis and therefore directed that the scheme be extended to all advocates registered with the BCD, she did not issue directions to the government to open a portal for registration for such advocates.The plea therefore sought a direction to the Delhi government to open the portal so that advocates can register for the scheme. A specific direction to open the portal for all including those who couldn’t register earlier due to COVID-19 constraints, has also been sought..The High Court had recently issued notice in another plea filed by the Delhi government challenging the July 12 order. .In November last year, Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal had announced that a 13-member committee of lawyers would be set up to make recommendations on the utilization of the Rs. 50 crore earmarked for the Advocates Welfare Fund by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government.In December 2019, the Advocates Committee set up under the convenership of the then-Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President, Rakesh Khanna proposed rolling out Group (Term) Insurance, Group Medi-Claim, e-library and creche for advocates in Delhi towards the utilization of the Chief Minister’s Advocates Welfare Scheme.The scheme was approved by the Delhi government earlier this year. The scheme provides several benefits to Delhi lawyers, including Group (Term) Insurance, Group Medi-Claim, e-library, and creche for advocates in Delhi..In March this year, a plea was filed to extend this scheme to lawyers residing in NCR, but practicing in Delhi. The single-judge accepted this plea and directed that all lawyers registered with BCD residing in Delhi and the surrounding NCR shall be entitled to be covered under the Delhi government's CM Advocates' Welfare Scheme.Justice Prathiba Singh had observed that there may be lawyers who practice primarily in Delhi, but have their permanent residence elsewhere like Faridabad, Gurgaon, Noida, Ghaziabad, etc. It was further noted that all may not be able to reside in the metropolitan area of Delhi due to a huge number of reasons like availability or affordability of accommodation etc.She, therefore, ruled that the insistence on a voter ID showing residence in Delhi to avail the welfare scheme is discriminatory, arbitrary and has no link to the object of the scheme.