The Bombay High Court on Wednesday raised serious questions about the financial feasibility and legal sustainability of providing a ₹5,000 monthly stipend to junior lawyers, specifically asking, “Who will arrange the funds?”
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne made the observation while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by twelve young lawyers from Maharashtra. The petition seeks a permanent stipend scheme for advocates in their first three years of practice, provided their annual income is below ₹1 lakh.
Although the Court expressed personal sympathy with the petitioners’ concerns, it emphasized the need to identify a legal and financial basis for 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? There is no element of public interest in this. How is society in general concerned with stipend to young lawyers?” the Bench asked.
The petitioners relied on similar schemes recommended by the Bar Council of India (BCI), which proposed stipends of ₹15,000 for lawyers in rural areas and ₹20,000 in urban areas. They also cited precedents from High Courts in Delhi, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, and Andhra Pradesh.
In response, Chief Justice Aradhe remarked:
“Why just ₹15,000? We believe that in cities like Mumbai, ₹45,000 should be paid. But where will the funds come from?”
According to submissions made by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), the estimated annual financial burden to implement such a stipend policy in the state would be approximately ₹155 crore. The BCMG counsel clarified that unlike some other states, Maharashtra had not extended governmental support for such initiatives, though a representation had been submitted to the authorities.
The PIL, originally filed in 2022 by lawyers including Ajit Deshpande and Akshay Desai, underscores the financial hardships faced by young advocates, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 lockdowns. It calls for the creation of a stipend scheme to be financed through the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court adjourned the matter for two weeks, directing the parties to return with clarity on whether any statutory right exists that would obligate the provision of such financial assistance.
