The Court examines a plea highlighting absence of a Supreme Court-specific welfare framework under existing statutory regime
Notice Issued on SCBA Petition
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in a writ petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking the establishment of a dedicated welfare fund for advocates practicing before the apex court.
A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed issuance of notice to the Supreme Court on its administrative side, the Union of India, the Bar Council of India, and the Bar Council of Delhi.
Appearing for the SCBA, Senior Advocate and SCBA President Vikas Singh contended that the current statutory framework suffers from a “legislative vacuum.” He pointed out that although the Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001 refers to vakalatnamas filed before the Supreme Court, the welfare contributions collected are ultimately credited to the Delhi Bar Council, leaving the SCBA outside the scheme.
During the hearing, Justice Narasimha observed that steps could be taken under the Supreme Court Rules, noting, “SC Rule 15A… something can be done. It is the need of the hour.”
Absence of Supreme Court-Specific Welfare Mechanism
The writ petition underscores the lack of a dedicated welfare mechanism for advocates practicing before the Supreme Court, despite the existence of welfare stamp regimes implemented by several State Bar Councils under the Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001.
Section 27 of the 2001 Act mandates the affixation of welfare stamps on vakalatnamas filed before courts, including the Supreme Court. However, the funds generated through such stamps are credited to State Bar Council welfare funds and are not earmarked for SCBA members.
The plea highlights that while State Bar Councils operate welfare stamp systems, no analogous mechanism exists within the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 for the benefit of Supreme Court practitioners. It states that this creates a disparity, as advocates practicing at the apex court often disconnected from their parent State Bar Council’s welfare schemes remain without adequate support in situations such as medical emergencies or unforeseen hardships.
Proposed Amendments to Supreme Court Rules
To address this gap, the SCBA has sought directions to amend the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The proposed amendments include insertion of a new Rule 15A, modification of the definition clause, and changes to Schedule III to mandate a welfare stamp of ₹500 on every vakalatnama filed before the Court.
The petition also proposes that the funds generated be managed by a high-powered welfare fund management committee under the supervision of the Chief Justice of India or a nominee judge, along with SCBA office bearers and nominated senior advocates.
Constitutional Challenge to Existing Framework
The SCBA has argued that the current statutory arrangement violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. It contends that the absence of a dedicated welfare structure for Supreme Court practitioners results in denial of adequate social security to a distinct professional class engaged in pan-India practice.
According to the petition, the lack of a Supreme Court-specific welfare framework has led to a disconnect between contributions and beneficiaries, absence of a centralized social security mechanism, lack of transparency in accounting of stamp revenues arising from Supreme Court filings, and insufficient welfare coverage for contingencies such as medical emergencies, disability, life insurance, and other hardships.
Additional Reliefs Sought
The petition seeks a declaration that references to the “Supreme Court” in Section 27(1)(b), its provisos, and Section 27(4) of the Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001 are unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14 and 21. It further seeks a direction that welfare stamps under the Act should not be required on vakalatnamas filed before the Supreme Court.
A similar declaration has been sought with respect to Rule 21 of the Delhi Advocates’ Welfare Fund Rules, 2001 (as amended in 2019), insofar as it applies to Supreme Court filings.
Additionally, the petition seeks amendment of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 to introduce a definition of “Advocates Welfare Stamp” and to mandate affixation of such stamps at ₹100 or any amount deemed appropriate by the Court on every vakalatnama.
The SCBA has also requested that proceeds from welfare stamps affixed on Supreme Court vakalatnamas be exclusively credited to a dedicated SCBA Welfare Fund. Pending adjudication, it has sought interim directions to the Bar Council of Delhi to deposit such proceeds into a separate interest-bearing account under the supervision of the Supreme Court Registry.
Further, the petition calls for the constitution and formal recognition of a sui generis SCBA Welfare Fund Management Committee.
Practical Concerns Highlighted
The plea draws attention to the challenges faced by advocates in circumstances such as medical emergencies, periods of reduced work, and crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. It submits that in the absence of a structured welfare corpus at the apex level, advocates have had to rely on ad hoc assistance within the Bar.
The petition also refers to Law Commission Report No. 266 and broader proposals advocating the creation of a centralized welfare architecture for legal professionals.
Case Details
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Supreme Court of India
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 294/2026
Filed Through: AoR Pragya Bhaghel.
Also Read: SC on COC Wisdom And Judicial Review.
