Advocates Re-using Same Welfare Stamp In Multiple Vakalatnamas : Registry Tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Registry today flagged the misuse of advocates' welfare stamps in e-filed vakalatnamas.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was informed during the hearing that lawyers were allegedly reusing scanned copies of the same welfare stamp in multiple vakalatnamas filed through the e-filing system.

Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay, appearing for the Registry, brought up the issue while the Court was hearing a plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking a separate welfare fund for advocates practising before the top court.

He submitted that there was no distinctive feature in the welfare stamps currently being used. “Lawyers are purchasing a single advocates' welfare stamp and scanning it and attaching it in a hundred vakalatnamas filed through e-filing portal, because there is no distinctive feature in the stamp. Earlier in physical filing it used to be cut, but now it is no more,” he said.

SCBA President Vikas Singh told the Court that the practice amounted to fraud and suggested the introduction of electronic stamping. “What he is saying is alarming. If they are using the same stamp, it is kind of a fraud. There should be e-stamping. Physical stamp is bought once and then photocopies can be attached in many vakalatnamas,” Singh said.

Justice Narasimha then asked whether vakalatnamas carried the client's signature. ASG Sanjay responded that the client signed the vakalatnama but not the welfare stamp.

Justice Narasimha observed, “It's a huge loss of revenue for the advocates welfare fund. We will call our committee to deal with this.”

On the main issue raised in the petition, Senior Advocate S Gurukrishna Kumar for the Bar Council of India sought two weeks' time to place its policy before the Court. The Court granted the request.

The petition filed by the SCBA seeks the creation of a dedicated welfare fund for advocates practising before the Supreme Court and contends that money collected through welfare stamps on vakalatnamas filed in the Supreme Court should not be transferred to the Advocates Welfare Trust under the Bar Council of Delhi.

The SCBA has argued that although welfare stamps are affixed on vakalatnamas filed in the Supreme Court, the proceeds are credited to the Bar Council of Delhi despite Supreme Court practitioners not receiving corresponding welfare benefits.

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.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 294/2026

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