The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an Advocate under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking multiple directions against the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. The petitioner had sought reimbursement of medical and travel expenses, house rent allowance, personal security, and other financial benefits available to un-established advocates, relying on Section 6(2)(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Rohit Kapoor clarified that Section 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is purely an “enabling provision” that empowers the Bar Council to provide financial assistance but does not confer any “absolute or enforceable right” upon an individual advocate to claim such assistance as a matter of legal entitlement.
The Court also held that the sine qua non for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is the existence of a vested and enforceable legal right, and the petitioner failed to establish such a right.
The Court further emphasized that a writ of mandamus can only be issued when a vested and legally enforceable right is established. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of such a right, the Court found no ground for interference and dismissed the petition as meritless.
Appearances:
Ms. Ravneet Kaur, Advocate (in person)
