June 22, 2025 | Mumbai, The Bombay High Court on Wednesday raised critical questions regarding the feasibility and statutory basis of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a monthly stipend of ₹5,000 for junior lawyers during their first three years of legal practice.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne observed that while the judiciary is personally sympathetic to the financial struggles of new advocates, the petition lacked clarity on who would fund the scheme and whether any statutory right exists to support such a demand.
“What is the statutory right? On a personal level, we support you. We agree with you… But principally, who will give this? Bar Council has no funds. Will you give any funds?” remarked Chief Justice Aradhe.
Background of the Petition
The PIL, filed in 2022 by twelve young lawyers from Maharashtra, seeks the creation of a permanent stipend scheme to support junior advocates earning less than ₹1 lakh annually. It proposes a ₹5,000 monthly stipend for the first three years of practice, funded through the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund.
The petitioners argued that many new entrants to the profession face severe financial hardship, particularly post-COVID-19, and referenced similar schemes in Delhi, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Jharkhand. They also cited the Bar Council of India (BCI) recommendation for monthly stipends of ₹15,000 in rural and ₹20,000 in urban areas.
Court’s Observations and Concerns
While hearing the matter, the Court posed several key questions:
- Whether the Bar Council or State is legally obligated to provide such a stipend?
- Whether there is any statutory mandate supporting such a financial right?
- How the ₹155 crore annual cost (as estimated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa) would be financed?
“Why just ₹15,000? We believe that in cities like Mumbai, ₹45,000 should be paid. But where will the funds come from?” the Chief Justice noted, highlighting the economic realities of urban legal practice.
Bar Council’s Stand
The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) stated that while other states have implemented such schemes with government backing, Maharashtra has not received such assistance.
“We would like to point out that certain states that have these schemes are aided… We can’t do that in Maharashtra,” the BCMG counsel submitted.
Next Steps
The Bench adjourned the matter for two weeks, directing all parties to return with legal clarity on:
- The existence of any statutory right to a stipend;
- The feasibility of financing such a scheme through the Welfare Fund or other means.
Significance
This PIL brings renewed attention to the economic vulnerability of junior advocates, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds or smaller towns. While the Court showed empathy for their plight, it stressed the need for legislative or executive action, rather than judicial fiat, to create and sustain such a stipend program.
The matter will be heard again after the summer recess, and may set a precedent for the role of welfare funding in supporting India’s legal professionals.
