Can lawyers travel on trains, HC asks state govt to respond

The Bombay high court (HC) directed the state on Tuesday to respond to a public interest litigation (PIL), which sought directions to permit lawyers to travel by

The Bombay high court (HC) directed the state on Tuesday to respond to a public interest litigation (PIL), which sought directions to permit lawyers to travel by suburban local trains, as they provide essential services. The PIL also claimed that as many lawyers do not own a private vehicle, it becomes difficult for them to commute to the court. Only government employees and essential service providers are currently allowed to travel by locals after services resumed last month.

HT Image

A division bench of justice AA Sayed and justice MS Karnik, while hearing the PIL filed by Chirag Chanani and other lawyers through videoconferencing, was informed by advocates Shyam Dewani and Bhoomi Katira that their client sought a declaration that services rendered by lawyers are essential services. The plea sought to direct the state and Centre, through the railways, to include lawyers in the list of essential service providers who are permitted to travel by suburban local trains.

While making submissions, Dewani said that lawyers were restricted from commuting by special local trains and were not included in the circular issued by the divisional railway manager, enumerating the categories of essential services staff who can be permitted to board the trains.

Dewani also submitted that though the Supreme Court and the Delhi high court considered services provided by lawyers as essential, lawyers in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region were deprived of the right to travel.

Referring to the petition, Dewani said that as the courts started functioning since last month, the lawyers who are residing in the suburbs go through tremendous inconvenience to travel to the courts and their offices located in south Mumbai.

The petition further added, “This problem is faced by hundreds of lawyers who do not have their own vehicles and are not in the bus zone or are required to change three-four buses to reach court, which is also a problem as time constraint for legal profession are of utmost importance.”

In the light of these submissions, Dewani sought directions from the court to allow lawyers to board the special local trains by declaring them essential staff.

After hearing the submissions, the bench issued notices to the respondent authorities and directed them to clarify their positions through affidavits in reply and posted the case for further hearing after two weeks.