Back
Issues Notice on Stipend for Junior Advocates, Citing Observations
A Division Bench of the at Kolhapur has taken up a crucial petition filed by 21 young advocates seeking implementation of a minimum monthly stipend scheme for junior lawyers, issuing notice to the and the Bar Council.
The Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, hearing the matter on , directed the respondents—the Chairman of the (through the Advocate General of Maharashtra) and others—to file affidavits detailing steps taken or proposed to provide financial support to junior advocates.
The Financial Hardship That Drives Young Lawyers Away
The petitioners, a group of young advocates practising before the Kolhapur circuit bench, argued that the existing has failed to provide meaningful financial assistance. They relied on a circular dated —issued pursuant to a order in —which recommended a monthly stipend of ₹20,000 in urban areas and ₹15,000 in rural areas for junior advocates.
The court observed that this recommendation and order
"remain a
, without having any teeth for their implementation, thereby leading to large-scale unrest amongst junior lawyers."
'A ' – 's Recognition
The High Court drew heavily on the 's recent judgment in
Sarika Tyagi & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
(
), which addressed similar issues in a public interest petition by women advocates. The
had described the initial years of legal practice as
"a
that often compels capable and promising young lawyers to abandon practice at the Bar altogether."
The apex court had proposed a comprehensive framework: a fund created through donations from successful lawyers, with tax incentives, to provide a reasonable monthly
for first-generation lawyers or those from disadvantaged backgrounds during their formative years. The financial assistance should be
"sufficient to ensure basic sustenance for the initial 3 years of practice,"
gradually reducing and ending after seven years.
'A for the Bar'
The High Court noted that similar welfare measures have been implemented in Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Puducherry. It stressed that it is
"the
of all stakeholders to ensure that the young advocates at the Bar who join this profession find their feet and rather entrench their feet in the first two or three years of their practice."
The court clarified that the petition, though invoking , should be viewed affirmatively by the respondents as a "" rather than an adversarial proceeding.
Notice Issued; Respondents to Reply
The court issued notice returnable on
, directing the petitioners to serve copies of the petition and order on the respondents. It specifically requested the respondents to file an affidavit
"indicating the steps being taken and/or proposed to be taken towards rendering financial assistance/stipend or any such scheme for the benefit of junior advocates at the Bar."
The court reiterated that the respondents should not treat the petition adversely but should consider the larger issue raised in the interest of the young advocates' community.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"Young members of the Bar who enroll into the profession after completing their legal studies devote their lives to this noble profession, and such devotion needs to be sustained."
"Grievance is expressed before us that, across the board, this recommendation and the order passed by the remain a , without having any teeth for their implementation."
"The itself describes the first two or three years of their joining the profession as a that often compels capable and promising young advocates to abandon practice at the Bar altogether."
"It is the of all stakeholders to ensure that the young advocates at the Bar who join this profession find their feet and, rather entrench their feet in the first two or three years of their practice, so that they do not wither away from the profession due to any reason, and more specifically on account of financial aspects."
A Broader Reckoning for the Bar Council?
The petition and the court's notice come at a time when the faces criticism for its dual role as regulator of both legal education and the profession. Commentators have pointed out that while the BCI has the statutory power to establish funds for financial assistance under , its circular on stipends remains unimplemented. The 's intervention may force a more concrete response from the Bar Council and state governments.
The matter will be heard next on , when the court expects to see concrete proposals from the respondents.
