Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea For Dedicated Welfare Fund And Lawyers Welfare Stamp For SCBA Members

The Supreme Court has issued notice in a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a dedicated 'Welfare Stamp' regime under the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001, as no such mandatory mechanism exists within the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, specifically for the SCBA Welfare Fund.

The Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed, "Issue notice. Returnable in two weeks."

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for the Petitioner.

Singh submitted, "There is a statutory vacuum in the Advocate Welfare Fund Act. There is a reference to vakalatnama in Supreme Court but the money will go to the Delhi Bar Council...SCBA is completely out in the Act."

Justice Narasimha said, "Supreme Court Rule 15A something can be done. It is definitely the need of the hour."

Singh said, "Whenever we need anything, we need to be dependent on the funds."

The Plea said, "The Petitioner seeks a direction for the insertion of Rule 15A, an amendment to the Definition Clause (s), and an addition to Schedule III of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 to mandate a Rs 500/- 'Lawyers Welfare Stamp' on every Vakalatnama. This would generate a sustainable corpus to be managed by a high- powered Committee headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India or his nominee. At present there is a clear legislative vacuum and structural inconsistency. No exclusive welfare corpus or administrative mechanism exists for SCBA members practicing before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court."

It was also submitted that SCBA members constitute a distinct and specialized professional class. The absence of a Supreme Court-specific welfare framework has led to structural disconnect between contribution and beneficiary class, lack of centralized social security for these set of practitioners, absence of transparent accounting of stamp revenue generated from Supreme Court filings, and inadequate welfare coverage for medical emergencies, disability, life insurance and unforeseen hardships.

"In this background, it is most respectfully submitted that insertion of Rule 15A and an amendment to the Definition Clause (s) and Schedule III of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 to mandate a Rs 500/- 'Lawyers Welfare Stamp' on every Vakalatnama filed before this Hon‟ble Court. This would generate a sustainable, autonomous corpus to be managed by a high-powered, sui generis Welfare Fund Management Committee headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India or his nominee. Such a mechanism would ensure fiduciary integrity, transparency, and a transition from a discretionary “charity-based” model to a mandatory “rights-based” social security system", it added.

The Petitioner also submitted that the SCBA members are being denied their fundamental right to basic social security. Under the current scenario, Sections 27(1)(b), its Proviso and 27(4) of the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001, every lawyer filing a case in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is required to pay for a welfare stamp. However, due to a structural flaw in the Act, the money collected from these Supreme Court filings does not go toward supporting SCBA members; instead, it is diverted into the funds of various State Bar Councils. This creates a 'collection-only' trap where SCBA members bear the financial burden of the law but are barred from receiving its benefits.

It stated, "By mandating a contribution while withholding the benefit, the current system is not only arbitrary and unfair but also violates the fundamental rights to equality under Article 14 and a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The present petition seeks to fix this 'revenue-benefit' mismatch by ensuring that funds generated in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court are used exclusively for the welfare of lawyers practicing in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India."

The Petition, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: 1. Direction declaring that the reference to the term “Supreme Court” occurring in Section 27(1)(b), its provisos, and Section 27(4) of the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore unconstitutional and void ab initio, and consequently direct that no welfare stamp under the said Act be required to be affixed on any Vakalatnama filed before this Hon’ble Court;

2. Direction declaring that the reference to the term “Supreme Court” occurring in Rule 21 of the Delhi Advocates’ Welfare Fund Rules, 2001 (as amended in 2019) is ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore unconstitutional and void ab initio, and consequently direct that no welfare stamp under the said Act be required to be affixed on any Vakalatnama filed before this Hon’ble Court;

Accordingly, the matter is now listed after two weeks.

Cause Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Supreme Court of India Through, Its Secretary General & Ors [Diary No. - 12791/2026]