Section 17 of Senior Citizen Act not to Come in Way of Legal Representation before Maintenance Tribunal: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 17 Of Senior Citizen Act would not come in the way of legal representation on behalf of the parties before the Maintenance Tribunal.
Facts
The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 17 of the Maintenance Act, alleging to be in violation of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 in so far as it prevents Petitioner, who is a Lawyer representing senior citizen before the Maintenance Tribunal. Section 17 of the Maintenance Act is also unconstitutional on account of being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The senior citizen has engaged petitioner as her Counsel in relation to a complaint filed under the Maintenance Act before the Maintenance Tribunal. The petitioner was denied entry by the Maintenance Tribunal citing Section 17 of the Maintenance Act.
Arguments
The petitioner relied upon the judgement passed by the Kerala High Court in Adv. K.G. Suresh v. Union of India. TheKerala High Court has declared Section 17 of the Maintenance Act as ultra vires to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The petitioner that they would be satisfied if a party before the Maintenance Tribunal is permitted to have a legal representation and if such right is permitted, they do not wish to challenge the constitutional vires of Section 17 of the Maintenance Act.
Provisions
As per Section 17 of the Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, no party to a proceeding before a Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal shall be represented by a legal practitioner so that easy, affordable and less time consuming justice may be made accessible to the senior citizens.
As per Section 30 of the Advocates Act every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which this Act extends, in all courts including the Supreme Court; before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practise.
Court’s Decision
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has relied on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Kumar Saroya and Ors v. The Union of India & Ors. The court requested the Central Government to have a re-look into the provisions of the said Act in view of our observations aforesaid, moreso in the context of Section 30 of the Advocates Act. The right to appeal is conferred on a party aggrieved under Section 16 of the said Act.
“We are in agreement with the view taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and direct that Section 17 would not come in the way of legal representation on behalf of the parties before the Maintenance Tribunal,” the court said.
Case title: Pawan Reley and Anr. v/s Union of India and Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 3074/2019 and CM APPL. 14133/2019
