Assisting loan to Advocates is violative of 6(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Government of India has released rupees Twenty-Five Crore out of Hundred Crore fund for the welfare of the advocates who are in need. A special committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Advocate General to disburse the amount of Twenty-Five Crore rupees.

Eligibility criterion for availing the loan that is –

  1. The advocate should not be stipend under the YSR law Nestham
  2. The Spouse of the lawyer should not be well employed
  3. A government undertaking
  4. Advocates with a four-wheeler and own house are not eligible which means the advocates who belong to a well off family or the advocates who have all the basic necessities and commodities is not eligible for the loan whereas the advocates who do not have their house or houses allotted under the government scheme for an economically weaker section or the person who lives in the house in a village is eligible for the loan. This means that the richer advocates cannot avail the loan but the poor category of the lawyers can avail the loan easily.

According to the order, the amount of 25,00,00,000 was to be utilized for the wellbeing of the needy advocates. The committee under the chairmanship of the advocate general and with four council members decided to carry out the loans for the advocates. They decided that council will be offering loans of Ten Thousand with the chargeable interest of Five percent and rupees Twenty Thousand with the chargeable interest of 9%.

The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh issued a notice which was challenged before the high court as illegal providing loans to the advocates who are in need and surrounded by Covid-19.

Advocate Syed Ziauddin has contended that the council’s decision to release the state-endorsed amount rupees Twenty-Five Crore in form of loan to the advocates is unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice as it is not permissible under the Advocates Act 1961. Section 6(2) of the Act clearly says that the bar council shall assist and not a loan. And in case of assistance there cannot be repaid. The amounts released are towards the assistance of advocates not towards trading the money like a bank. The facility of the health care with released amount is not permissible and thus the said portion is also coming in the way of the distribution of assistance amount.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s