Summary
The Supreme Court partly modified directions concerning four public-sector insurers’ payments to panel advocates. The High Court should not have reopened the superseded 2004 fee-schedule dispute in this PIL when compliance with the 2009 and 2014 schedules was admitted and undisputed. The older-schedule and interest directions were set aside, while payments already made under that schedule were protected. Wider questions were expressly left open, and the decision was confined to its facts.
Issues
- Whether the High Court should have determined the old fee-schedule dispute in the PIL despite undisputed compliance with later schedules.
- Which payment and interest directions should remain operative.
Held
- The dispute pursued before the Division Bench concerned the fee schedule effective in 2004 and its regional modification. Compliance with the replacement 2009 and 2014 schedules was admitted and unchallenged. Reopening the older dispute was unnecessary for the stated concern about poor litigants. (¶¶ 9, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The Court expressly left open the propriety of registering the PIL, the enforceability of GIPSA circulars and wider issues concerning panel-advocate fees. It decided the appeals on their own facts and stated that the decision should not be relied on as a precedent on those open questions. (¶¶ 10, 15)
- The direction compelling adherence to the 2005 circular effective from 1 November 2004 was set aside. Fees already paid under that circular were final and could not be reopened. (¶ 16(i))
- The insurers remained required to pay fees and balances payable under the schedules effective from 1 January 2009 and 1 April 2014, consistently with their admissions. The High Court’s interest direction was set aside. (¶¶ 16(ii), 16(iii))
Result
Appeals partly allowed. Earlier-schedule and interest directions set aside; completed payments protected and admitted obligations under the 2009 and 2014 schedules retained. Wider questions expressly left open.