"Independent practitioners who set up office in the last 3 to 5 years were mostly at the receiving end. Most of them are still in a dilemma whether to continue their practice at Delhi or stay back at their hometowns due to the prevailing uncertainties."
SABARISH SUBRAMANIAN
Covid-19 has not only taken away lives but has also taken away the livelihood of most people in India, including advocates. The loss of livelihood often results in the loss of life as one cannot survive without the other. After the virus surge, the Central Government announced a nationwide lockdown at very short notice without adequate plans of implementation, adversely affecting the livelihood of Junior advocates.
‘Supreme Court advocates’ are often associated with hefty fees and a ‘king size life’ at Delhi by common people. Contrarily, a recent study conducted by organisation Vidhi indicates that many junior advocates earn between Rs.7,000 and Rs.10,000 per month. Most Supreme Court junior advocates at Delhi belong to different part of India and take care of their expenses without any support, struggling to manage the exorbitant cost of living. This is where the Novel Covid-19 dealt a crippling blow to the life of junior advocates practicing at Delhi. Many of them earn by filing applications and representing their clients in courts on a daily basis, as if earning daily wages. Due to the lockdown and closure of courts, their daily earnings came to a halt and deprived them of any income. Even now there are severe restrictions on usual court work, client counselling, and hearing of matters in Supreme Court of India. Junior lawyers without established legal practice or family background to lean upon are mostly vulnerable. They are often lawyers from indigenous communities, Dalits or economically backward.
IMPACT:-
The first impact of Covid’19 was on rent for house accommodation. A large chunk of a junior’s earnings goes for rent at Delhi. Most of my junior colleagues were forced to vacate their premises temporarily and shift back to their hometowns. Independent practitioners who set up office in the last 3 to 5 years were mostly at the receiving end. Most of them are still in a dilemma whether to continue their practice at Delhi or stay back at their hometowns due to the prevailing uncertainties.
One such colleague from Tamil Nadu even shut down his own office and joined as a junior in someone else’s office.
Recently president of the Gujarat High Court Bar Association, Mr. Yatin Oza resigned after learning that the person who delivered him food from swiggy turned out to be a lawyer having practice in Gujarat High Court. Similarly, the Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court gave Rs. 10,000 to an advocate who took to basket weaving during the pandemic. On 26.05.2020, the chairman of BCI wrote to then CJI SA Bobde that only a handful of privileged advocates have been able to utilise the benefit of hearings conducted via video conference facilities. Even SCAOR President wrote that around 95% of the lawyers are not comfortable with virtual hearing.
As per Bar Council of India Rules Chapter VII Rule 47, an advocate is not permitted to earn livelihood by any other means. Recently, Supreme Court observed that “we are conscious of the fact that the advocates are bound by Rules which restrict their income only to the profession. They are not permitted to earn a livelihood by any other means”.
The aforesaid provision restricts Junior Advocates from earning their livelihood from any other temporary avocation. Any violation would amount to professional misconduct leading to cancelation of license to practice law.
I ask myself if we are all equipped with Good mobile network and high-speed Internet in India. The answer is a big NO. Due to poor network, inaccessibility to high-speed internet, infrastructure, lack of technical skill and training have made virtual hearings difficult. Securing justice for clients has become harder. Similarly, due to sliding economy, the professional advocates fees have come down drastically, making it a Herculean task to maintain house, office, Juniors and staff. The digital hearing has come with a heavy price for those who were dependents on everyday physical hearing for their income, especially the junior lawyers who just started their independent career.
Though the members of Supreme Court Bar Association and SCAORA requested the Hon’ble Supreme Court to resume physical hearing, most Senior advocates are not supportive since it might harm their opportunity to appear before Supreme Court and several High Courts at the same time. Before Covid-19, if a Supreme Court Senior Advocate had to physically appear in a High Court, he had to sacrifice his appearances before Supreme Court, which is not the case now.
POSITIVE ASPECTS:
Of course, there are also positives to take from the pandemic. According to me, the size of litigation may go up exponentially after the pandemic. Proceedings under Negotiable Instrument Act, suits for specific performance & for breach of contract, matrimonial disputes, industrial disputes, Insolvency proceedings etc. are likely to increase. Secondly, this pandemic indicates that the future of litigating lawyers is Alternative Disputes Resolution. Thirdly, Covid-19 lockdown enabled organizing several webinars by various institutions, (including foreign institutions) and organisations helping the juniors to learn from eminent professionals. Fourthly, it enabled providing many online certificate courses by Universities across the world. Finally, advocates got opportunity and time to rejuvenate their mind and body.
As the saying goes “this too shall pass”. I sincerely believe that we will bounce back taller and achieve our goals. Let’s equip ourselves and adapt to new technologies, explore new fields in law and tap new opportunities. After all, we are blessed to not only earn handsomely but also give back to the society by protecting the rights of the people.
The author, Mr. SABARISH SUBRAMANIAN is our associate at Delhi. He is a Supreme Court Advocate on Record.
コメント