The Telangana High Court has recently dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 12 and Section 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 which stipulates the fixation of a welfare fund stamp of Rs 250 on every Vakalat filed by advocates. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 166]

In doing so the court observed that the law was not a toll on right to practice but helps lawyers who are suffering through hardship. 

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda held:

“…There are few certainties in the life of a professional and fewer still in the life of one who works at the bar. The advocate and the clerk live by the court's calendar and not by the clock of their own lives. In an age that moves faster each year no one can say what a single day will bring. Illness or accident or a sudden death can end a career and a household's security together. It is in that hour of loss that a welfare fund proves what it is for. The stamp that is affixed to a Vakalat costs the contributor little and is soon forgotten. Gathered over many hands and many years it becomes the immediate financial support to which a widow or an orphaned child or an aged parent can turn before any other help arrives. A family that has lost its earning member has no time to wait for a remedy that is slow in coming…”, the court observed.

Noting the above, the court held that the impugned provisions is a social welfare measure for the betterment of legal profession.

“….it deserves to be said that a society that expects its members to serve it must also expect them to bear a small share of the burden of caring for one another. The sum that is asked of every Advocate when a Vakalat is filed is slight. It is not a toll on the right to practise. It is the thread by which a profession ties together those who are fortunate with those who fall into hardship…” the court said further.

The court opined further that the aforesaid stipulation of welfare stamp to the tune of Rs 250 is a valid exercise of legislative power. As per the high court, such exercise was not repugnant to central laws or fundamental rights. The court also remarked that creation of such safeguards falls within the State's domain under Entries 23 and 26 of the Concurrent List.

“…The fund exists so that grief is not made heavier by want. It is a promise that the fraternity makes to itself that the dependents of those who served the cause of justice will not be left to stand alone. When we weigh that promise against the objections raised before us, we find no reason in the Constitution to break it. The uncertainty of life is not an argument for taking this safeguard away. It is the strongest reason for keeping it. The Act and the Fund are therefore neither unconstitutional nor ultra vires the Constitution…”, the court said further.

To recap, the petitioner-lawyer, Vijay Gopal [party in person] challenged the validity of Section 12 of the 1987 Act, which required a welfare fund stamp (whose quantum later increased to Rs 250) on Vakalats under the name 'Nyayavadula Mariyu Vari Gumasthala Samkshema Nidhi', as well as Section 12A, which mandates to distribute the amount so collected among the Telangana Advocates Fund and the Telangana Advocates Clerks Welfare Fund. As of now, 86% of the collection goes to the Advocates Welfare Fund and 14% to the Advocates Clerks Welfare Fund, the petitioner submitted.

According to the petitioner, the welfare fund stamp was introduced in1992 for merely Rs 8, which was progressively enhanced to 250 in 2025.

The petitioner challenged the provision saying that it was a colourable legislation since the subject falls in Entry 78 of List 1 (persons entitled to practise before the High Courts). It was also argued in the plea that the amendments enhancing the stamp value lacked fresh Presidential assent under Article 254(2). According to the petitioner-lawyer, the levy violated Article 19(1)(g) unreasonably, as well as Article 19(1)(c).

The state defended the provision, arguing that Section 12 is a validly enacted provision, and the filing section's refusal to accept a Vakalat without the stamp merely gives effect to a subsisting statutory provision. The state further contended that the act, along with the impugned provisions is traceable to Entries 23[social security, social insurance] and 26[Legal & Medical Profession] of List III..

The state further contended that the impugned provisions do not legislate on persons entitled to practise before the High Court. According to the state, the welfare fund committee is a statutory body, not a private association, and the levy too is statutory for a well specified welfare purpose.

After hearing both sides, on legislative competence, the court noted as below:

“….Entry 78 of List I deals with the qualifications and the right to practise before the High Courts. The impugned provisions do not prescribe who may be enrolled as an Advocate. They do not regulate the conduct of Advocates, or confer, or take away the right to appear. They provide only that a prescribed welfare stamp be affixed to a Vakalat and that the proceeds be applied to welfare purposes. Any effect on the field of Entry 78 is incidental…”, the court said in the order.

On Article 19(1)(c), the Court held that the petitioner is not compelled to join any association but only to contribute to a statutory fund of which he is a potential beneficiary. On Article 19(1)(g), the Court held that the welfare stamp does not prevent the petitioner from practising or limit the number of cases he may take up.

“…. A contribution of that kind towards the welfare of the profession is a reasonable burden…”, the court noted while adding that the requirement is procedural and attaches only to the manner of filing.

On Article 14, the Court found there is no unequal treatment, since every advocate filing a Vakalat pays the same stamp value.

Hence, the court dismissed the writ petition.

“…A fund of this kind is built from many small contributions. No individual contribution is great but together they form a safety net that no one could build alone. An individual objection to a modest sum must yield where the sum is collected under valid law and applied to a larger interest in which the contributor himself shares. The law protects the individual from arbitrary exactions. It does not exempt the individual from contributing towards a shared and lawful purpose. Hence, the amounts collected by the State under the Act are legal and warrant no interference by this Court…”, the court held before parting.