The court ruled that young advocates do not have a legally established right to claim stipends under Article 21, thus they cannot mandate financial assistance from the Bar Councils.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation with the following prayers:

"a) Honourable court may issue the writ of mandamus nature directing R1 and R2 to consider the financial difficulties to the all concerned and to provide the financial assistance of Rs.5000 to the petitioner and newly enrolled advocates in Bar council of delhi during his initial year of practice;

b) Honourable court may pass an direction for making rules for chamber/co-working space allotment by creating equal opportunity to the newly enrolled advocates;

c) Honourable court may be pleased to pass any other order, judgement in the interest of justice as deems fit."

2. The Petitioner, who is 29 years of age, is a young advocate, who has enrolled himself in the Bar Council of Delhi and cleared the AIBE Examination in the year 2021. He is presently working as a junior in the chambers of a Senior Advocate. The Petitioner by way of the instant Public Interest Litigation wants to highlight the difficulties being faced by newly enrolled advocates who are finding themselves in a position where they cannot sustain themselves in Delhi. It is stated that the young advocates are unable to arrange for their accommodation, food, travelling and other expenses, and without there being any proper and consistent source of income, they are unable to make both ends meet.

3. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that Bar Council of India has issued a notification granting a minimum stipend for a sum of Rs.5,000/- to all the young advocates for the initial three years of their practice. It is stated that many junior advocates are not paid anything by their seniors owing to which they are unable to concentrate on the profession. It is also stated that a survey conducted by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy demonstrates that more than 79% of the Advocates across 7 High Courts with less than two years of legal practice at the Bar are earning less than Rs.10,000/- per month.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner by way of the instant Public Interest Litigation further highlights the unavailability of space for newly enrolled Advocates where they can sit and entertain clients. It is stated that there are no rules to accommodate the newly enrolled Advocates in the chambers.

5. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon a similar Public Interest Litigation filed in the High Court of Bombay seeking a permanent stipend scheme for junior lawyers with an annual income of less than Rs.1 lakh for the first three years of their practice and states that the High Court of Bombay has issued notices to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. It is further stated that the High Court of Chhattisgarh and the High Court of Allahabad have also issued notices in similar Public Interest Litigations filed on the very same issue. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also relies upon the decision of the Government of Kerala wherein sanction was accorded to pay a monthly stipend of a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to junior lawyers of a specified category, payable out of the Welfare Fund created under Kerala Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1980.

6. Heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material on record.

7. Undoubtedly, the Petitioner has highlighted the problems being faced by the young lawyers who have enrolled in this noble profession. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that youngsters, who have just enrolled themselves as Advocates, face immense difficulties in sustaining themselves owing to the high cost of living in Delhi. It is inde