[COVID-19] Plea in AP HC challenges AP Bar Council's decision to disburse financial aid to lawyers as loans with interest

A plea has been filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the State Bar Council's decision to distribute State-granted financial aid as repayable loans to enrolled advocates (Syed Ziauddin v. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and Ors)..The petitioner, Advocate Syed Ziauddin, submits that the State government's grant of Rs 25 Crores to the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh for assistance to lawyers in need amid the COVID-19 pandemic should be given to the lawyers ex gratia..The decision to grant the aid as loans with interest is "illegal, irregular, irrational and violation of principles of natural justice", the petitioner argues..The Government of Andhra Pradesh had recently decided to sanction a sum of Rs 25 Crores to be disbursed to lawyers struggling financially amid the pandemic. .The amount forms part of a much larger grant apportioned to the Bar Council in the Annual Budget for the establishment of a Trust for Advocates in need. A Committee headed by the Advocate-General has been tasked with identifying lawyer-beneficiaries for this scheme..The petitioner's grievance lies with the Bar Council's resolution to disburse these amounts as loans with interest. The petition records that the Council has also floated a scheme for a health insurance cover for lawyers in need. .Given that the government had resolved to release the amount for the welfare of struggling advocates, the same was "assistance" and not a "loan", the petitioner states. Therefore, the amounts cannot be extended as loans to be repaid with interest imposed, he argues. .Further, such a demand would contravene the Advocates' Act, which requires the State Bar Council to provide assistance to lawyers, Advocate Ziauddin submits. ."The amounts released is towards Assistance of Advocates and not towards trading the money as if it’s a commercial Bank."Petitioner.He also contends that the health insurance scheme was outside the scope of the Government's grant, as was the repayment requirement. The scheme impedes the efforts to aid financially-straitened advocates, it has further been submitted.."In fact the GO issued by the 2nd respondent (State Government) would show that the amount released is only for the Assistance of the Advocates and there is no scope of Health Insurance."Petitioner.Citing the examples of other Bar Councils who had distributed money to advocates in need following the decisions of similarly-constituted committees, the petitioner asks why the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council did not do the same. .The plea also questions the notification of the loan and insurance scheme by the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council when it was the Committee that was tasked with disbursement. ."...The entire burden is on the Advocate General to answer this and the other Members will be in the Committee and also equally responsible... the proceedings doesn’t show who are the members of the Committee and when the decision was taken and why the interest portion was added which runs contrary to section 6(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and G.O.", it is stated..Advocate Ziauddin also narrates that he had sent a representation over the issue to the Bar Council earlier..Read the AP Bar Council Notification:.Read the Andhra Pradesh GO: