The Delhi High Court today dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the inclusion of advocates as 'professional' under the MSME Act. (Abhijit Mishra vs UOI).The PIL was preferred by one Abhijit Mishra, an economist. He sought directions to extend the welfare schemes under the MSME Act to advocates. .Refusing to entertain the plea, a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Prateek Jalan said, .PIL is for downtrodden and those who cannot approach the court themselves. These are advocates..While the petitioner-in-person urged that there was no bar on him filing a PIL, the Court explained that PIL could not be filed on behalf of a class that is capable of espousing its own cause. ."Yes, there is a bar.. In your enthusiasm to file one petition per week you can't see it", the Court said. .The Court added that it would examine the issue as and when an advocate approaches the court with any grievance. .It was the Petitioner's concern that advocates who are "Brothers in Arms in the Black Coat & Gown” were not eligible to the various development schemes including collateral-free loans etc on account of the arbitrary and biased definition of “Professionals” under MSME Act. .It was asserted that advocates are an essential pillar of democracy and that their work is even recognized in Part III of the Constitution under Article 22.
The Delhi High Court today dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the inclusion of advocates as 'professional' under the MSME Act. (Abhijit Mishra vs UOI).The PIL was preferred by one Abhijit Mishra, an economist. He sought directions to extend the welfare schemes under the MSME Act to advocates. .Refusing to entertain the plea, a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Prateek Jalan said, .PIL is for downtrodden and those who cannot approach the court themselves. These are advocates..While the petitioner-in-person urged that there was no bar on him filing a PIL, the Court explained that PIL could not be filed on behalf of a class that is capable of espousing its own cause. ."Yes, there is a bar.. In your enthusiasm to file one petition per week you can't see it", the Court said. .The Court added that it would examine the issue as and when an advocate approaches the court with any grievance. .It was the Petitioner's concern that advocates who are "Brothers in Arms in the Black Coat & Gown” were not eligible to the various development schemes including collateral-free loans etc on account of the arbitrary and biased definition of “Professionals” under MSME Act. .It was asserted that advocates are an essential pillar of democracy and that their work is even recognized in Part III of the Constitution under Article 22.
