Bombay High Court questions legal basis of stipend for junior lawyers 

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (June 25, 2025) raised questions over whether junior lawyers in Maharashtra have a statutory right to receive a monthly stipend, even as it expressed sympathy for their financial struggles.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by twelve junior advocates from Maharashtra seeking a monthly stipend of ₹5,000 for junior lawyers with less than three years of practice and an annual income under ₹1 lakh. 

While acknowledging the financial hardship faced by junior lawyers, the Court questioned the legal basis for mandating a stipend. “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?” Chief Justice Aradhe asked. 

He further queried whether the demand served a broader public interest: “There is no element of public interest in this. How is society in general concerned with stipend to young lawyers?” 

The petitioners, represented by advocates Ajit Deshpande and Akshay Desai, argued that the stipend would provide crucial financial assistance during the formative years of legal practice, particularly for those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. They cited similar stipend schemes implemented in other states including Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Jharkhand, and Andhra Pradesh, and pointed to a Bar Council of India (BCI) recommendation for stipends of ₹15,000 in rural areas and ₹20,000 in urban regions. 

When the petitioners pointed out that the Delhi High Court had already passed directions in this regard, Chief Justice Aradhe replied, “Why just ₹15,000? We believe that in cities like Mumbai, ₹45,000 should be paid. But where will the funds come from?” 

The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), in its response, stated that implementing the scheme would cost approximately ₹155 crore annually — an amount it claimed it cannot afford without state support. The BCMG counsel said, “Certain states that have these schemes are aided. We can’t do that in Maharashtra. We had sent a representation.” 

The Court adjourned the matter for two weeks and directed the parties to return with clarity on whether any statutory provision requires such financial aid for junior lawyers. The petition also proposes that the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund be used to finance the scheme. 

Filed in 2022, the petition argues for the creation of a permanent stipend scheme to support young advocates through the early, financially unstable years of legal practice. 

The petition said, “A survey conducted by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy claims that more than 79% of surveyed lawyers across 7 High Courts said that advocates with less than 2 years of legal practice at the Bar earn less than ₹10,000 a month. The survey also showed the disparity in incomes of senior advocates and the entrance of the profession. This reflects the need of the hour to support young lawyers who have not been in a position to sustain themselves.” 

It also said that the State Government of Maharashtra has not taken any steps to economically support the new lawyers and to give economic aid to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

“On March 24, 2020, the Bar Council of India appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to provide ₹20,000 as a minimum subsistence allowance per month to lawyers who are not financially well off so that they can support their families following the lockdown. But unfortunately, no economic support has been provided by the Central Government,” the petition said.