No Ladies’ Bar Rooms, No Stipends: Supreme Court Takes Up Challenges Faced By Women And Young Lawyers

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana described the issues raised in the petition as concerning "accessibility, inclusiveness and the long-term sustainability of women in the legal profession."

The petition was filed by a group of women advocates practising before various courts across the country. During the hearing, the petitioner-counsel submitted that despite judicial directions requiring aspiring civil services candidates to have at least three years of court exposure, women lawyers continue to face systemic barriers in the profession.

"There is absence of fixed stipend for newly enrolled advocates in the courts," counsel submitted.

The Court was informed that a nationwide survey conducted by the petitioners revealed that in a majority of court complexes, there was either no dedicated ladies' bar room or the existing facilities lacked even essential amenities.

Presenting a short presentation before the Bench, the counsel described the condition of facilities available to women advocates as "pathetic", particularly in districts located within a 50-kilometre radius of the Supreme Court. "Greater Noida and Ghaziabad do not even have ladies' bar rooms. It's just like the feeling is; you go! We are not supposed to be there. We are not to be seen," counsel submitted.

Referring to conditions in Ghaziabad, counsel stated that women advocates are informally expected to attend court only between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. "I've heard that lady advocates are supposed to be there from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. only. Once you send away your children to school and husband to office, come to the court and by one o'clock go back. We don't have any facilities, we cannot stay till 4 p.m.," she submitted.

According to the petitioners, the lack of infrastructure has resulted in women advocates being largely absent from major final arguments and cross-examinations in several district courts, including the Surajpur Court complex.

The counsel further alleged that requests for separate facilities often met with resistance. "They say, 'Lady advocates will start doing politics while sitting in ladies' bar room, so there is no need of ladies' bar room,'" she told the Court.

The petition also highlighted that in Mathura, the ladies' bar room remains locked and inaccessible to women lawyers.

Submitting that women advocates work in a "hostile atmosphere", the counsel stated: "We know we won't get any relief from the Bar Association office bearers and from the court administration. Sorry to say, they don't want to spend on us."

The submissions found considerable resonance with the Bench.

"We must give compliments for the amount of research, the hard work and the way you have collected this material. We really admire and feel that there are people who are committed to the cause of the judicial system and for the legal fraternity. Commendable job you've done," CJI Surya Kant remarked.

The Chief Justice also complimented the young women lawyers associated with the exercise, describing it as "the most satisfying experience" and noting that the petition had collected information from courts "right from South to North to the West."

In its order, the Court observed that the issue could not be brushed aside as one of "mere convenience."

"The legal profession has seen a steady rise in participation of women over the years, but mere opening of doors is not enough. To make participation meaningful, it must be supported by conditions that allow women advocates to discharge their duties effectively, including properly equipped spaces within court complexes," the Bench said.

The Court emphasised that court complexes are not merely venues where proceedings are conducted but also workplaces where advocates spend substantial parts of their professional lives preparing cases, meeting clients, consulting colleagues and drafting pleadings.

The absence of designated spaces with basic amenities for women lawyers, the Court observed, disproportionately affects them and, in some cases, may even discourage them from continuing in litigation.

Significantly, the Bench held that the provision of such facilities bears a direct nexus with the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. "When women advocates spend substantial parts of their day in court, the availability of infrastructure for comfort, privacy, safety and professional functioning becomes essential," the Court observed.

The Bench also turned its attention to the financial struggles faced by young advocates, particularly first-generation lawyers.

Observing that many young lawyers begin practice without an office, library, client base or assured income, the Court noted that modest stipends from seniors are often insufficient even for basic living expenses. This financial precarity, it said, sometimes forces young lawyers to abandon litigation altogether, resulting in a "brain drain" and depriving the Bar of young talent.

The impact, the Court noted, is even sharper on first-generation lawyers and those from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds. The Bench proposed the creation of a "Young Lawyers Professional Assistance Fund" under the supervision of High Courts or an autonomous body established in consultation with the Union and State Governments.

The Court also suggested that stakeholders consider enacting a structured law permitting donations and contributions from senior and successful lawyers. It further mooted the possibility of earmarking a portion of court fees and costs imposed in proceedings for the proposed fund and providing incentives such as tax exemptions, national awards and other honours to encourage contributions.

According to the tentative proposal, the fund could provide reasonable monthly stipends to young, first-generation and economically weaker advocates for the first three years of practice, with financial assistance tapering gradually up to seven years, by which time a lawyer would ordinarily be expected to attain professional self-sufficiency.

The Bench further suggested that beneficiary advocates could eventually contribute back to the corpus in phased instalments, thereby creating a self-sustaining support mechanism for future generations of lawyers.

Clarifying that these were only tentative observations intended to invite wider consultation, the Court issued notice and requested the Attorney General for India, all Advocate Generals of States and Standing Counsel for Union Territories to remain present and assist the Court on July 17.