SC flags ‘brain drain’ in legal profession, directs creation of fund for young lawyers

Observing that the legal profession risks a “brain drain” if financially struggling young lawyers are compelled to abandon litigation for careers offering greater financial stability, the Supreme Court on Friday (June 19, 2026) directed the creation of a “Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund” in every State and Union Territory.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana noted that the initial years of legal practice often impose severe financial hardships, particularly on first-generation lawyers and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. It pointed out that many promising young advocates are forced to leave the profession in order to continue supporting their families as “primary breadwinners”.

The Bench also acknowledged that a financial and social support network can help young lawyers navigate the uncertainty that characterises the early years of practice. It observed that the decision to continue in litigation is often shaped more by economic considerations than by merit or professional aptitude.

“A young first-generation lawyer entering the Bar does not immediately inherit an office, a library, a stable clientele, or a predictable source of income. During this formative period, many junior advocates remain dependent upon modest stipends paid by their seniors or, in some places, by local Bar Associations, which are often insufficient to meet even their basic living expenses,” the Bench said, adding that the absence of a steady stream of clients and the limited remuneration available during the early years of practice often result in acute financial hardship.

The top court passed the directions while hearing a petition filed by a group of six women lawyers seeking improved infrastructure and welfare measures for members of the Bar across the country. Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Monika Gusain submitted that young lawyers face several “systemic barriers and roadblocks” during the initial years of practice, including the absence of a fixed stipend to help them cope with financial uncertainty.

To address these concerns, the apex court called for the creation of a fund to be placed under the control of the jurisdictional High Courts or an autonomous body constituted by the Union and State governments.

“It, thus, seems to us that a Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund must be created and should be established under the exclusive control of the jurisdictional High Courts or an autonomous body constituted by the Union of India in consultation with the State Governments. A framework of such nature will inspire greater confidence amongst prospective donors and contributors to the Fund,” the Bench said.

‘Self-sustaining fund’

The Bench also outlined possible sources of funding for the proposed scheme. It suggested that Parliament and State legislatures consider creating a statutory framework for structured donations by successful senior advocates and other members of the legal fraternity.

In addition, the court proposed that a portion of court fees and a substantial share of costs imposed in judicial proceedings be directed towards the fund. To incentivise contributions, it suggested tax exemptions, national awards, and other forms of recognition for donors.

The Bench also envisaged a “self-sustaining model” for the proposed fund, under which lawyers who receive financial assistance during the early years of practice could contribute back to the corpus once they attain financial stability and establish themselves professionally

.“...such financial assistance may be proportionately reduced over time, finally coming to an end after 7 years of practice. This is likely to coincide with the young lawyer eventually developing self-sufficiency and establishing an independent practice,” the Bench said.

‘Equal participation in public life’

The petition, filed by advocates Sarika Tyagi, Seema Vashisth, Asha Jyoti Arya, Bhanu Priya Sharma, Veena Nisar Khan and Snigdha, also drew the court’s attention to the absence of adequately equipped Ladies’ Bar Rooms and other basic facilities in a majority of High Courts, district courts, tehsil courts, tribunals and commissions. It contended that the lack of such infrastructure adversely affects the ability of women advocates to discharge their professional responsibilities.

Acknowledging that these concerns cannot be dismissed as matters of mere administrative convenience, the Bench underscored that while the legal profession has witnessed an encouraging rise in the participation of women over the past few decades, meaningful inclusion requires the creation of infrastructure and support systems that enable them to work on an equal footing with their male counterparts.

“The provision of such essential facilities prima facie bears a direct nexus with the fundamental guarantee of life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution....When women advocates are required to spend substantial portions of their day within court premises, the availability of basic infrastructure necessary for their comfort, privacy, safety, and professional functioning assumes utmost significance,” the Bench observed, adding that the concerns strike at the “heart of the constitutional guarantee of dignity and equal participation in public life”.

Recognising the “wider ramifications” of the issues raised, the court issued notice to all States and Union Territories and requested Attorney General R. Venkataramani, the Advocate Generals of the States, and standing counsel for the Union Territories to assist it in developing a comprehensive framework. The matter will next be heard on July 17.