SC repudiates plea which sought for widening the scope of ‘Professionals’ under MSME Act to include Advocates

The Apex Court declined to entertain a plea which sought for inclusion of Advocates under the definition of ‘Professionals’ in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

The bench headed by CJI issued this direction while repudiating petitioner’s plea to challenge the Delhi High Court’s order which did not into consideration former’s Public Interest Litigation regarding the said issue inclusion.

The petitioner, who is a law student, prayed before the Delhi HC to amend the definition of ‘professionals’ on ground of it being arbitrary, restrictive and biased. The petitioner stated that due to the restrictive definition, the advocates are unable to utilize the welfare schemes of Central Government declared under the MSMED Act.

The petitioner’s plea was inclusive of directions to the Department of Financial Services in order to introduce banking products as well as consultation schemes that would benefit Bar Council of India in furtherance of Advocates’ welfare.

The plea also sought for directions to the Reserve Bank of India to issue guidelines and instructions to the banks to offer collateral free loans, credit facilities and varied schemes under Section 20 of the MSMED Act, upon a consultation with Bar Council of India.

The Delhi HC, in the year 2020, refused to entertain the said PIL and made an observation that unless a particular class of persons are affected, the said petition could not be preferred.

According to the Delhi HC, if the targeted class of persons are denied access to courts, or are poor, illiterate, or belong to any other deprived class, then the said plea could be considered.

The court stated that the advocates, on the other hand, are capable enough to approach the court. If they are aggrieved of certain orders, they can approach the court and the decision would be taken after considering the merits of the case.

The petitioner had also filed a review petition against the order of Delhi HC but the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground that there had been no error apparent on the face of record.