On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain a public interest plea seeking expansion of the Delhi government’s advocate welfare health scheme to cover lawyer’s parents, holding that courts cannot issue directions that would alter contractual terms between the State and an insurer, thereby closing the door on judicial intervention in policy-linked insurance coverage.
The Petition was moved by an association representing first-generation lawyers, contending that the existing advocate welfare scheme provides medical insurance cover only to advocates, their spouses, and dependent children, while excluding parents, despite rising healthcare costs and the absence of alternative social security for many in the profession.
The plea sought a judicial direction compelling the government to broaden the scope of beneficiaries under the scheme. The State’s position, however, rested on the contractual nature of the insurance arrangement, which was negotiated and finalised on defined terms with the insurer.
The Division Bench led by the Chief Justice made it clear that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to rewrite contractual obligations or compel parties to renegotiate policy terms. Questioning the maintainability of the plea, the Court observed, “Can a court issue a direction to the party over a contract? Even if someone desires, by a writ of mandamus, can we direct this?”
In view of this legal position, and upon the petitioner seeking liberty to pursue the matter before the government instead, the Court permitted withdrawal and disposed of the petition.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
