No Welfare Fund For SC Lawyers? Supreme Court Issues Notice On SCBA Petition

The bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was hearing the petition filed under Article 21 of the Constitution, raising concerns over the absence of a structured welfare mechanism for Supreme Court lawyers.

Appearing for the SCBA, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued that there exists a “statutory vacuum” in the framework governing advocates’ welfare funds.

“There is a statutory vacuum in the Advocates Welfare Fund Act. Even though vakalatnamas are filed in the Supreme Court, the welfare fund contributions go to the Delhi Bar Council,” Singh submitted, pointing to a gap in the current legal regime. He further drew the Court’s attention to provisions of the statute, submitting that under Section 16 of the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, the SCBA is required to obtain recognition from the Delhi State Bar Council, thereby limiting its independent standing in matters concerning welfare funding.

Taking note of the submissions, Justice Narasimha observed that the SCBA “doesn’t have standing on its own” under the existing statutory framework. However, he indicated that there may be scope for addressing the issue through judicial intervention.

Referring to procedural rules, the bench noted that certain measures could potentially be explored under the Supreme Court Rules. “Something can be done. Definitely the need of the hour,” Justice Narasimha remarked, acknowledging the broader concern raised in the petition.

The plea filed through AoR Pragya Baghel highlights a longstanding demand from members of the Supreme Court Bar for a dedicated welfare mechanism, similar to those available at the state level for advocates practicing in High Courts and subordinate courts.

Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition argues that SCBA members are effectively denied social security benefits despite contributing to welfare funds through mandatory stamp mechanisms. It contends that while the Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001 provides for welfare funds at the State level, no equivalent system exists specifically for advocates practicing before the apex court.

At the heart of the plea is a proposal to introduce a ₹100 “Lawyers Welfare Stamp” on every vakalatnama filed before the Supreme Court through an amendment to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The petition seeks insertion of a new Rule 15A, alongside amendments to the definition clause and Schedule III, to institutionalise a dedicated welfare mechanism.

According to the petitioner, the absence of such a framework has resulted in a “revenue-benefit mismatch,” where funds collected from Supreme Court filings are diverted to State Bar Councils rather than being utilised for the benefit of SCBA members. “This creates a ‘collection-only’ trap,” the petition submits, arguing that advocates practicing primarily before the Supreme Court bear the financial burden of contributing to welfare funds without receiving corresponding benefits.

The plea highlights that Sections 27(1)(b) and 27(4) of the Act mandate affixation of welfare stamps on vakalatnamas filed before the Supreme Court. However, due to the current statutory design, the funds collected are channelled to State Bar Councils, leading to what the petitioner terms “unjust enrichment” of State-level bodies at the expense of apex court practitioners.

The petition further underscores that SCBA members form a distinct professional class, often detached from their parent State Bar Councils and their associated welfare schemes. This, it argues, leaves them without a meaningful safety net in cases of medical emergencies, disability, or other unforeseen hardships.

Invoking Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, the petitioner contends that the absence of a dedicated welfare framework violates the principles of equality, the right to practice a profession, and the right to life with dignity. It also links the issue to broader constitutional values, asserting that the welfare and institutional security of advocates are intrinsically tied to access to justice and the independence of the Bar.

To address these concerns, the petition proposes the creation of a centralised welfare corpus, to be administered by a high-powered committee headed by the Chief Justice of India or a nominee. The proposed mechanism aims to ensure transparency, fiduciary accountability, and a shift from what is described as a discretionary “charity-based” model to a mandatory “rights-based” system of social security.

The plea emphasises that the current omission in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 perpetuates structural exclusion and requires urgent rectification.