Bombay High Court Questions Right Of Young Lawyers To Claim Stipend From State Bar Council: “Who Will Provide The Funds?”

Mumbai, June 2025 –
In a  hearing that could impact the future of thousands of young law graduates, the Bombay High Court on Monday raised critical questions regarding the demand for stipends by young lawyers. The Court observed that while the concern for financial hardship faced by junior advocates is real, the State Bar Council is not legally obligated to provide monthly stipends, and more importantly, “who will fund it?”

What Was The Case About?

A petition was filed seeking monthly financial assistance (stipend) for young and newly enrolled lawyers across Maharashtra and Goa. The petitioner argued that many law graduates struggle financially in the initial years of practice, especially when they have to work under seniors without pay for long hours. The plea claimed this hampers access to the legal profession for students from weaker financial backgrounds.

Court's Observations: A Delicate Balance

The division bench, led by Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale, while sympathetic to the plight of young lawyers, raised serious legal and practical concerns:

❝ Everyone wants to help young lawyers, but there has to be a clear structure for such financial aid. The Bar Council is not a revenue-generating body. So where will the money come from? ❞

The Court also questioned whether it is legally enforceable to mandate stipends for lawyers under current laws. It noted that while Bar Councils handle regulatory and disciplinary functions, disbursing monthly payments is not among their core responsibilities.

Ground Realities for Young Lawyers

It is widely known that fresh law graduates often do not earn stable incomes for several years. Many depend on family support or take up other jobs. The absence of any structured internship, stipend or traineeship model in India’s legal profession, unlike in medicine or corporate sectors, has long been debated.

Petitioners' Argument: A Matter of Right and Inclusion

The petitioner’s side argued that the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is at stake. They also referenced some state governments like Kerala, which have introduced monthly stipends for junior lawyers.

They asked the Court to direct the Bar Council to formulate rules, and if needed, request government support or explore Bar Welfare Fund allocations.

Court’s Critical Question: Is It Feasible?

The judges did not outright reject the idea but hinted that such a scheme would require legislative backing and collaboration between the judiciary, government, and Bar Council. The Court observed:

❝ If the State Bar Council doesn’t have the money, will it come from the government exchequer? If so, under what law or scheme? ❞

Next Hearing and Future Steps

The matter has been adjourned for further hearing, with the Court directing the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to submit an affidavit detailing their financial condition and any existing welfare schemes.