Anshika Tiwari –
A plea before the Jabalpur Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has been filed to seek the tag of ‘frontline workers’ for the legal fraternity.
The petitioner has urged the court to ensure that treatment and vaccination drive for the lawyers is taken up on a priority basis.
The petitioner Akhil Bhartiya Sanyukt Adhivakta Manch Bharat, represented by Advocate Ved Prakash Nema, is a consortium of lawyers with the object of “development and welfare of the legal fraternity”. This move, in their opinion, is necessary to secure the rights of the persons working in the profession.
The petitioner in his prayer before the court mentions that despite providing a category of services deemed as ‘essential’ the legal fraternity has been so far deliberately kept out of the realm of frontline workers.
Thus, the petitioner states are manifestly discriminatory towards the lawyer vis-a-vis other professionals providing ‘essential services.’
The petition further adds that “Access to justice is a fundamental right under Article 21 and a running wheel of the Indian Judicial System”.
The petitioner has made a reference to In Re (Suo Motu) v. Union of India & Ors. where the court took cognizance of the need to seamlessly distribute medical aid to each and every section and individual of society.
Another decision the petition refers to is Sunil Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the court acknowledged essential services rendered by advocates and allied staff and authorised their movement with valid passes amidst imposition of Section 144 CRPC.
“Bar and Bench both are the strongest pillar on which the entire structure of justice dispensation is placed upon. The Thankless job of these two wings of justice delivery is not expressly and vocally accepted but deserves the utmost respect like any other profession”, the petition reads.
The petition has highlighted that the judicial wing has been working with the same rigor and commitment, despite ‘unprecedented situations of grief’.
Even after being aware of their contribution, the State Government has been apprehensive towards acknowledging their worth.
There have been instances of similar petitions in the past before the Delhi and Bombay High Courts as well and the states’ courts have acted upon them.
