Bombay High Court seeks response from State, Bar Council on stipend for junior advocates

Published 4 August 2026 · india

The Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court has issued notices to the Maharashtra government and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) on

The Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court has issued notices to the Maharashtra government and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) on a petition seeking a structured financial assistance scheme for junior advocates. A Division Bench of Justices Milind Jadhav and Nandesh Deshpande directed the respondents, including the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra and the Secretary of the Law and Judiciary Department, to file their responses by August 24. The court asked them to specify the measures taken or proposed to provide financial assistance to advocates with less than three years of practice. The court observed that the issues raised by the petitioners merited consideration in the larger interest of the young advocate community. It noted that the Supreme Court had described the first two or three years of practice as a period of turmoil that often compels capable advocates to abandon the profession.

Advocate Asim Sarode, representing the petitioners, said the petition relied on a Bar Council of India (BCI) circular dated October 15, 2024, which recommended a monthly stipend of ₹20,000 for junior advocates practising in urban areas and ₹15,000 for those in rural areas. He argued that the BCMG had not taken meaningful steps to implement these recommendations. The petitioners also referred to the Supreme Court’s June 19, 2026, judgment in Sarika Tyagi & Ors. vs Union of India, in which the court observed that the lack of financial support during the early years of practice could lead to a “brain drain” from the Bar. The judgment mentioned that the issue had engaged the legal fraternity for decades. Sarode submitted that several States and Union Territories, including Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Puducherry, have implemented stipend schemes for young advocates, adding that Maharashtra, despite having one of the largest legal communities in the country, has not yet established a comparable mechanism.

Advocate Shriya Awale, who also appeared for the petitioners, informed the court that the petition had been filed in a representative capacity on behalf of junior advocates across Maharashtra, adding that the plea sought a transparent framework for providing a stipend. The Bench, while issuing notices, requested the respondents not to take the cause espoused by the petitioners adversely and asked them to consider the issues in the larger interest of the advocate community, particularly young advocates. The petition, led by advocate Saklen Mansur Mujawar and filed by 21 young advocates from different parts of Maharashtra, argued that newly enrolled advocates faced economic hardship due to low earnings and the absence of institutional support. It highlighted the challenges faced by first-generation lawyers and women advocates. The petitioners invoked Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and sought interim directions requiring the BCMG to place its audit reports for the last five years before the court and furnish details of newly enrolled advocates in the State.