The Jharkhand High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking financial assistance and medical insurance coverage for practising advocates in the State after recording the Jharkhand Government's assurance that annual premiums for registered advocates would be paid by the State on a continuing basis.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by a practising advocate in Jharkhand seeking directions for financial aid and health insurance coverage for advocates and their dependent family members.

The petitioner had sought directions to the Union of India and the State Government to provide financial assistance to the Jharkhand State Bar Council for supporting needy practising advocates. A further prayer was made for extending medical insurance coverage to advocates and their dependents, including by expanding the Ayushman Bharat Health Insurance Scheme.

The Court, by an earlier order dated 10 July 2024, had observed:

“Consequently, this Court observed that let the State as well as the Union of India to make an endeavor to save the life of the lawyers by formulating guideline with regard to grant benefit of life insurance and medical benefit so that these classes of people will be more benefitted because they are rendering service in dispensation of justice.”

During the hearing, Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned AC to AAG-II, submitted that the State Government had already taken concrete steps towards implementation of a health insurance scheme for advocates.

Referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, he submitted that the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand had passed a resolution dated 24.01.2025 providing that an annual premium of Rs. 6000 per registered advocate would be paid by the State.

It was further submitted that necessary budgetary provisions had already been made under the “Non-Salary Head” and that updated premium amounts would be communicated periodically to the Jharkhand Advocates Welfare Trustee Committee. The State also clarified that the policy was not confined to a single year and that budgetary allocations would continue to be made annually.

Counsel for the petitioner and the Jharkhand State Bar Council submitted that the resolution ought to be published in the official Gazette to avoid bureaucratic hurdles during implementation. However, the State assured the Court that non-publication in the Gazette would not obstruct implementation of the scheme. Recording the undertaking of the State, the Court observed:

“We accept the statements made in the affidavit filed by Dr Neha Arora on behalf of the State of Jharkhand as an undertaking on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.”

The Court further observed:

“Similarly, we accept Mr Gaurav Raj's contentions that there would be no difficulty in implementing the policy, simply because it has not been published in the official Gazette to date.”

Holding that the reliefs sought in the PIL stood “substantially worked out,” the Court disposed of the petition while observing that if publication in the official Gazette was necessary, the State would take appropriate steps within a reasonable period.

Case Title: Bidesh Kumar Dan v. Union of India & Others.

Case Number: W.P. (PIL) No. 1956 of 2021.

Appearance: Md. Shadab Ansari for Petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Raj for State. Mr. Prashant Pallav and Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta for Union of India. Mr. Manoj Tandon, Ms. Neha Bhardwaj and Mr. Siddharth Ranjan for JSBC. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh and Mr. Karbir for BCI.

Click Here To Read/Download Order