Bombay HC Seeks Maharashtra's Response on PIL Seeking Stipend for Junior Advocates [Read Order]

Kolhapur: The Bombay High Court's Circuit Bench at Kolhapur has issued notice on a writ petition filed by twenty-one young advocates seeking effective implementation of financial assistance and stipend schemes for junior members of the Bar under the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1981.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande was hearing Writ Petition (ST.) No. 6592 of 2026, filed by Saklen Mansur Mujawar and twenty other young advocates practising before the Court, against the Chairman, Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee, through the Advocate General of Maharashtra, and other respondents.

The Court observed that while the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1981 vests statutory powers and authority to administer the Welfare Fund, extend financial assistance, and organise welfare schemes for young lawyers, the said mechanism appeared to have fallen short in practice. The petitioners relied upon a circular dated 15.10.2024 issued by the Bar Council of India, pursuant to a Delhi High Court order dated 25.07.2024 in Simran Kumari v. Bar Council of India & Anr., which had recommended a minimum monthly stipend of Rs. 20,000 in urban areas and Rs. 15,000 in rural areas for junior advocates assisting seniors and law firms.

The petitioners' grievance was that this recommendation remained "a paper tiger, without having any teeth for their implementation," leading to large-scale unrest among junior lawyers who had joined the Bar with the hope of practising and rendering justice. The Court was also informed of similar welfare measures in place in Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Puducherry.

Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that substantial funds were available with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, as gathered from a statutory audit report. The Court, however, declined to express any view on this aspect without hearing the other side and in the absence of an affidavit in reply.

The petitioners also drew the Court's attention to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sarika Tyagi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 770 of 2026, dated 19.06.2026, which had considered a similar public interest petition filed by women advocates and had made observations on financial support for young lawyers generally, invoking Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Court extracted the Supreme Court's observations at length, including the following:

"It is this period of turmoil that often compels capable and promising young lawyers to abandon practice at the Bar altogether. We apprehend that such attrition may produce a form of professional \"brain drain\", diminishing the ability of the Bar to attract and retain the young and meritorious... The proposed Fund must be utilized to provide a reasonable monthly stipend-cum-honorarium to such young advocates, who are first-generation lawyers or those from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds, during the formative years of their professional careers... The quantum of financial assistance so granted ought to be sufficient to ensure basic sustenance for the initial 3 years of practice... [and] may be proportionately reduced over time, finally coming to an end after 7 years of practice."

Finding merit in the issues raised, the Court observed that it was "the bounden duty of all stakeholders to ensure that the young advocates at the Bar... find their feet and, rather entrench their feet in the first two or three years of their practice," so that they do not withdraw from the profession on account of financial constraints.

Accordingly, the Court issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 24.08.2026, and directed the petitioners to serve copies of the petition and the order on the respondents. The respondents were directed to file an affidavit in reply within three weeks, indicating the steps taken or proposed to be taken towards rendering financial assistance, stipends, or any similar scheme for junior advocates in the State. The Court further requested the respondents to consider the cause espoused by the petitioners affirmatively, and not adversely, in the larger interest of the young advocates' community.

Case Title: Saklen Mansur Mujawar & Ors. v. The Chairman, Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee, Through The Advocate General of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition (ST.) No. 6592 of 2026) 

[Read Order]