Supreme Court Seeks BCI's View On SCBA Plea That SC Lawyers Should Get Exclusive Benefit Of Advocates' Welfare Stamps In SC Vakalats

The Supreme Court today sought the Bar Council of India's response to the Supreme Court Bar Association's plea that money collected from welfare stamps on vakalatnamas filed in the Supreme Court should not be transferred to the Advocates Welfare Trust under the Bar Council of Delhi.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a plea by SCBA seeking the creation of a dedicated welfare fund for advocates practising before the Supreme Court. The plea seeks that the proceeds from welfare stamps be deposited into a dedicated welfare fund for the Supreme Court Bar Association.

During the hearing today, Advocate Radhika Gautam, appearing for the Bar Council of India, sought two weeks' time to file an affidavit.

SCBA President Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, submitted that at present the money collected through welfare stamps goes to the Bar Council of Delhi. He contended that the Bar Council of Delhi has no role to play as far as Supreme Court lawyers are concerned, and the amount should instead be kept in an account with the Supreme Court till the petition is decided.

Counsel for the Bar Council of Delhi clarified that the money is not with the Bar Council but with a trust.

The Court asked BCI counsel to take instructions on Singh's contention. Justice Narasimha observed that one reason the money goes to the Bar Council of Delhi is that the Supreme Court is located in Delhi, but noted that filings in the Supreme Court are regulated by the Supreme Court Rules.

The Court then directed counsels for the parties to take instructions on the contention that the amount attributed towards advocates' welfare fund should not be transferred to the Advocates Welfare Trust under the Bar Council of Delhi.

Background

The petition arises from the existing framework under the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001. Section 27 of the Act requires welfare stamps to be affixed on vakalatnamas filed before courts, including the Supreme Court. The proceeds from these stamps are credited to State Bar Council welfare funds.

The SCBA has contended that this results in funds generated from Supreme Court filings being credited to the Bar Council of Delhi, without any mechanism to earmark them for advocates practicing before the Supreme Court.

According to the petition, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 do not provide for any dedicated welfare stamp or fund for Supreme Court practitioners. It states that while several States have welfare stamp systems, no similar framework exists at the level of the Supreme Court, leaving its practitioners without a structured welfare mechanism.

The petition seeks amendments to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, including insertion of a proposed Rule 15A, changes to the definition clause and Schedule III, and a direction to mandate a welfare stamp on every vakalatnama filed before the Court.

It further seeks that the proceeds from such stamps be deposited into a dedicated welfare fund for Supreme Court Bar Association members, to be administered by a committee under the aegis of the Chief Justice of India or a nominee judge, along with SCBA office bearers and nominated senior advocates.

The SCBA contends that the present arrangement creates a disconnect between the contributors and beneficiaries of the welfare fund and leaves Supreme Court practitioners without adequate social security, including in situations such as medical emergencies and periods of reduced filings.

The petition also challenges the inclusion of the Supreme Court within the scheme of Section 27(1)(b) and Section 27(4) of the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001, as well as Rule 21 of the Delhi Advocates' Welfare Fund Rules, 2001 as amended in 2019, on the ground that they do not provide any corresponding benefit to Supreme Court practitioners.

Pending disposal of the petition, the SCBA has sought a direction to the Bar Council of Delhi to deposit all welfare stamp proceeds from Supreme Court filings into a separate interest-bearing account under the supervision of the Supreme Court Registry.

The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Pragya Bhaghel.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 294/2026

Case Title – Supreme Court Bar Association v. Supreme Court of India