Introduction:

The Madras High Court, in a recent decision, clarified that lawyers empanelled by banks, being in a purely professional relationship, do not fall under civil posts, and thus, laws of reservation do not apply to their appointment. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, overturned a previous single judge’s order, emphasizing that the empanelled lawyers’ engagement was contractual and not covered by service laws. The court addressed concerns raised about transparency and equality in the empanelment process, stating that reservation policies would be an overstretch of Article 16 of the Constitution.

Arguments:

The single judge’s order had highlighted the need for transparency and adherence to equality clauses in the Constitution, pointing out flaws in the existing empanelment procedures that allegedly led to corruption, favoritism, and nepotism. The division bench countered this, asserting that the relationship between banks and empanelled lawyers is professional and not that of a master and servant. The court argued that applying reservation policies to empanelment would stretch Article 16 too far, as the lawyers’ engagement lacked the characteristics of public employment.

Court’s Judgement:

The Madras High Court ruled that Article 16, applicable to matters of public employment, does not extend to the empanelment of lawyers by banks. The court underlined that banks, dealing with public money, have an obligation to protect it by engaging proficient and competent individuals. While appreciating the single judge’s concerns, the division bench held that issuing directives to banks for reservation in empanelment exceeds judicial purview in the absence of constitutional or statutory mandates.