Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Bombay High Court, on Tuesday, issued notices to State, Centre and Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa over two separate petitions seeking that services rendered by lawyers be declared as "essential services" amid the coronavirus-enforced lockdown.
The Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and a criminal writ petition, both seeking the same relief.
While the bench of Justice AA Sayed and Justice MS Karnik was hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Chirag Chanani and others, the bench directed the state to file its reply to the PIL within 2 weeks. The division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Madhav Jamdar heard the writ petition filed by Advocate Imran Shaikh, on which the bench directed the State and the Bar Council of India to respond to the writ petition by Friday.
The PIL has been filed by lawyers Chirag Chanani, Sumit Khanna and Vinay Kumar through their counsel Shyam Dewani.
The criminal writ petition has been filed by lawyer Imran Shaikh, through his counsel Karim Pathan.
The PIL contended that petitioners are lawyers, practising in various Courts at Mumbai and suburbs and are restricted from commuting by local train and aren't taken into consideration as essential services by the circular issued by the Divisional Railway Manager's office enumerating the categories of essential services staff permitted to travel by local train.
A large number of advocates live in the suburbs and it was almost impossible to attend Courts without local train services, submitted by Advocate Shyam Dewani Advocate Shyam Dewani.
Whereas, GP Poornima Kantharia argued that Courts are functioning through video conferencing and even the court staff is not allowed to travel in locals. She contended that lawyers can make their own arrangements for travel like moving in private vehicles.
It argued that lawyers are officers of the court and work towards ensuring justice for the aggrieved.
Therefore, their services must be considered as essential.
Justice Sayed directed the State and Centre to file a reply in the case and adjourned the hearing for two weeks.
Whereas, it was contended in the writ petition that the petitioner Advocate Imran Shaikh was stopped by a traffic police staff while he was on his way to a court in Mumbai on June 29
"He was stopped by the traffic police on the Western Express Highway and fined Rs 500 since he was on a two-wheeler. The police said the state had restricted citizens from moving out beyond two-km radius of their homes unless they were going for an essential service," his counsel said.
"My client (Shaikh) showed his case papers, his ID card to the police, after which he was allowed to go, though with a fine," he said.
As per Shaikh's plea, this resulted in him reaching late to the magistrate's court, and the hearing in his case was therefore adjourned.
The writ petition urged the court to direct the state government to "exempt lawyers and their staff" from the lockdown restrictions for the purpose of going to court.
The PIL urged the court to also permit lawyers to use the suburban trains for going to work.
It was argued by both Plea and Writ petition that since the courts across the state have been functioning during the lockdown, the lawyers, who are officers of the court and are thus essential for the courts to function, must be recognised by the state and central authorities as essential service providers.
86540
103860
630
114
59824