Bombay High Court questions legal basis of stipend for junior lawyers
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (June 25, 2025) raised questions over whether junior lawyers in Maharashtra have a statutory right to receive a monthly stipend, even as it expressed sympathy for their financial struggles.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by twelve junior advocates from Maharashtra seeking a monthly stipend of ₹5,000 for junior lawyers with less than three years of practice and an annual income under ₹1 lakh.
While acknowledging the financial hardship faced by junior lawyers, the Court questioned the legal basis for mandating a stipend. '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?' Chief Justice Aradhe asked.
He further queried whether the demand served a broader public interest: 'There is no element of public interest in this. How is society in general concerned with stipend to young lawyers?'
The petitioners, represented by advocates Ajit Deshpande and Akshay Desai, argued that the stipend would provide crucial financial assistance during the formative years of legal practice, particularly for those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. They cited similar stipend schemes implemented in other states including Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Jharkhand, and Andhra Pradesh, and pointed to a Bar Council of India (BCI) recommendation for stipends of ₹15,000 in rural areas and ₹20,000 in urban regions.
When the petitioners pointed out that the Delhi High Court had already passed directions in this regard, Chief Justice Aradhe replied, 'Why just ₹15,000? We believe that in cities like Mumbai, ₹45,000 should be paid. But where will the funds come from?'
The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), in its response, stated that implementing the scheme would cost approximately ₹155 crore annually — an amount it claimed it cannot afford without state support. The BCMG counsel said, 'Certain states that have these schemes are aided. We can't do that in Maharashtra. We had sent a representation.'
The Court adjourned the matter for two weeks and directed the parties to return with clarity on whether any statutory provision requires such financial aid for junior lawyers. The petition also proposes that the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund be used to finance the scheme.
Filed in 2022, the petition argues for the creation of a permanent stipend scheme to support young advocates through the early, financially unstable years of legal practice.
The petition said, 'A survey conducted by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy claims that more than 79% of surveyed lawyers across 7 High Courts said that advocates with less than 2 years of legal practice at the Bar earn less than ₹10,000 a month. The survey also showed the disparity in incomes of senior advocates and the entrance of the profession. This reflects the need of the hour to support young lawyers who have not been in a position to sustain themselves.'
It also said that the State Government of Maharashtra has not taken any steps to economically support the new lawyers and to give economic aid to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.
'On March 24, 2020, the Bar Council of India appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to provide ₹20,000 as a minimum subsistence allowance per month to lawyers who are not financially well off so that they can support their families following the lockdown. But unfortunately, no economic support has been provided by the Central Government,' the petition said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
3 hours ago
- Scroll.in
9 granted bail in Nagpur riots case
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted bail to nine persons arrested in connection with the communal riots that erupted in Maharashtra's Nagpur in March, PTI reported. The violence in Nagpur on March 17 took place hours after Hindutva groups held a protest in the city demanding that Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's tomb located in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar be removed. Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench noted that the custody of the nine arrested persons was not needed anymore. The persons who were granted bail are Absar Ansari, Ashfaquulla Aminullah, Ejaz Ansari, Iftekar Ansari, Iqbal Ansari, Izhar Ansari, Mohammad Rahil, Mohammad Yasir and Muzzamil Ansari. They have been charged under sections of the Arms Act, the Maharashtra Police Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Their counsel had argued that the investigation had been completed, because of which their custody was no longer necessary. The prosecution had opposed the bail plea. The Hindu quoted Senior Public Prosecutor DV Chauhan as having argued that the alleged actions of the nine persons amounted to a ' form of terrorism ' and posed a threat to public order. The court noted that bail was the rule and jail was the exception, the Hindustan Times reported. It granted bail to the men on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh each. The bench said that the bail would be cancelled if a crime of similar nature was registered against them, The Hindu reported. The accused men were also warned against tampering with the prosecution evidence or threatening witnesses. One-hundred and twenty-three persons, including 19 minors, were arrested in connection with the violence. In March, Hindutva groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal had stepped up their campaign to demand the removal of Aurangzeb's tomb, claiming that the structure is a 'symbol of pain and slavery'. The two groups convened protests in several cities in Maharashtra on March 17. Hours after the protest by a Hindutva group, clashes erupted in central Nagpur's Chitnis Park at 7.30 pm. Stones were thrown at the police amid rumours that a cloth with the Islamic declaration of faith, known as the Kalma, had been burnt during an agitation by a Hindutva group in the late afternoon. The police, however, denied that such a cloth was burnt. Another clash erupted in Hansapuri, an area close to Chitnis Park, between 10.30 pm and 11.30 pm. The violence also spread to the Kotwali and Ganeshpeth areas.
Scroll.in
4 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Bombay High Court dismisses petition alleging discrepancies in Maharashtra Assembly elections
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition demanding that the results of last year's Maharashtra Assembly elections be set aside due to alleged discrepancies in the polling process. A bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Arif Doctor refused to entertain the writ petition filed by a man named Chetan Chandrakant Ahire. The court said that the petition deserved to be dismissed with costs, but it refrained from doing so. The petitioner claimed that about 76 lakh votes, or 6.8% of the total votes, were polled after the official closing time of 6 pm. He contended that these votes were illegal as the Election Commission had no data about them. Ahire, in his petition filed through advocate Prakash Ambedkar, alleged discrepancies between the number of votes polled and the number of votes counted in over 90 constituencies. He claimed that returning officers neglected Election Commission norms by not reporting these alleged discrepancies. The petitioner sought an order setting aside the results across all 288 Assembly constituencies in the state due to alleged violations in the polling process. He also sought the details of the voting tokens after 6 pm, a constituency-wise breakdown of votes cast outside official hours and the revocation of election certificates for successful candidates. The bench, however, did not accept these contentions. It said that it was 'quite astonished' about how the petition was filed based merely on an opinion piece and a newspaper report, which it said contained unsubstantiated claims. 'Except such limited material, there is no other material whatsoever, much less of any authenticity, to the effect that there was any malpractice, fraud or complaint of any nature in regard to the voting at the closing hours of the poll i.e. at about 6 pm..' it said. The court also said that the hearing of the matter took a whole day, due to which urgent cases had to be left aside. The bench said that the petition was unsustainable on several grounds. It noted that the petitioner had not approached the Election Commission making his 'demand for justice' before invoking its writ jurisdiction, which made the petition not maintainable, it said. 'This apart, we wonder as to how the petitioner can have a locus standi to seek such wide, sweeping and drastic reliefs to question the entire elections of the State Legislative Assembly,' it said. 'It is a relief, too far fetched, that too on the basis of no cause of action as the facts clearly demonstrate.' The court also noted that the petition was barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution. This provision bars courts from interfering with election proceedings and states that challenges to elections can only be undertaken through an election petition presented to the appropriate authority. 'These provisions constitute a code by itself and cannot be by-passed in questioning the solemnity of the elections as conducted by the ECI [Election Commission] within the constitutional setup,' the court said. The bench said that the petition was based on suspicion and rejected it. The dismissal came two days after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alleged that ' vote theft ' had taken place in the Maharashtra Assembly elections in November. Gandhi demanded the immediate release of machine-readable digital voter rolls and CCTV footage of the election. The Bharatiya Janata Party-led Mahayuti alliance had defeated the Maha Vikas Aghadi, which includes the Congress, in the Assembly polls.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
'The bar council has no funds' HC questions ₹5,000 stipend for junior lawyers
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned the legal entitlement of young lawyers, who have practised for less than three years, to receive a monthly stipend of ₹ 5,000. Examining the legal sustainability of the cause, the court said the Bar Council has no funds to provide such financial assistance. (Shutterstock) The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne on Wednesday was hearing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by 12 young lawyers in 2022. The petition contended that the new lawyers were affected by COVID-19 and urgently required financial assistance. It stated the Bar Council must financially support young lawyers who have not completed three years of practice and have an annual income of less than ₹ 1 lakh. Every lawyer in Maharashtra and Goa is registered under the Bar Council of India and the Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council. They have paid ₹ 15,000 to the council towards the welfare fund for lawyers, so it becomes the responsibility of these councils to look into the welfare of the lawyers, said the petition. The petition, filed through advocate Asim Sarode, cited a survey conducted by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. According to the study, more than 79% of surveyed lawyers across seven high courts, with less than two years of legal practice at the Bar, earn less than ₹ 10,000 a month. The petition also referred to news reports showing several lawyers died by suicide because of the prevailing economic crisis. 'Being able to earn a livelihood is part of the right to live with dignity,' they said, adding that the high courts in Telangana, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry have already taken the initiative to provide relevant financial assistance to their young lawyers. The petitioners relied on an order passed by the Kerala High Court which granted young lawyers a monthly stipend of ₹ 5,000. The Bar Council of Delhi High Court also provided financial assistance to daily earning lawyers during the complete lockdown due to the COVID-19 outbreak, said the petition. The state government and the Bar Council are legally obligated to constitute and contribute to the Advocate's Welfare Fund, said the petition. 'It seems that the state government of Maharashtra has not taken any steps to economically support the new lawyers and to give economic aid to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa,' it added. On March 24, 2020, the Bar Council of India (BCI) appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a minimum monthly subsistence of ₹ 20,000 to lawyers who are not financially well-off so that they can support their families. BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, in his letter to the PM and the CMs of all states, requested a provision that provides allowance from the Centre and state government funds, either directly or through Advocate Welfare Funds of the state bar councils. However, no economic support has been provided by the Central Government. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, on the other hand, submitted that implementing this policy would cost them approximately ₹ 155 crore annually. The bench observed that the petition lacks elements to entertain the cause. 'What is the statutory right? On a personal level, we support you. But principally, who will give this? The Bar Council has no funds. Will you give any funds? How is society in general concerned with the stipend to young lawyers?' it said. The bench stated that ₹ 15,000 is inadequate to sustain in Mumbai. 'We believe that in cities like Mumbai, ₹ 45,000 should be paid. But where will the funds come from?' The court directed the parties to clarify the existence of a statutory right mandating stipends for young lawyers and scheduled to hear the case after two weeks.
