The Supreme Court has directed the creation of a ‘Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund’ in every State and Union Territory to support financially struggling young lawyers. The court observed that the lack of a steady client base and limited remuneration in the early years of practice often result in acute financial hardship, particularly for first-generation lawyers and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana noted that many promising young advocates are forced to leave the profession in order to continue supporting their families as ‘primary breadwinners.’ The court pointed out 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. The Bench 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 mooted 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.
The petition, filed by a group of six women lawyers, 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. The court acknowledged that these concerns cannot be dismissed as matters of mere ‘administrative convenience’ and 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.
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.
