A petition has been filed before the Rajasthan High Court challenging various amendments made to the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 in 2020 [Satish Kumar Khandal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.]
Advocate Satish Kumar Khandal has argued that the 2020 amendment places an unfair financial burden on lawyers by over four-fold increase in the vakalatnama stamp fee without making any changes in their benefits.
He has, thus, challenged the legality of Sections 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 2020. These provisions raised the membership fee for the welfare fund, increased the value of the welfare stamp from ₹25 to ₹100, mandated a yearly rise of ₹10 in the stamp cost, and extended the qualifying period for maximum retirement benefits from 40 to 50 years.
Khandal has argued that the amended structure strays from the purpose of the 1987 Act, which was meant to extend welfare protection to as many advocates as possible.
"Petitioner challenges the impugned provisions for the cause of the members of legal fraternity, who have been put to disadvantageous position because of the impugned provisions despite giving their blood and sweat to the profession... The impugned amendment is manifestly arbitrary and is patently illegal and invalid and therefore is liable to be quashed and set-aside" the plea contends.
He has contended that the sharp rise in fees, without a matching increase in support, makes the new structure unfair and legally unsound.
"The aforesaid amendments... has placed immense financial burden upon the Advocates and has de facto excluded many advocates from getting the benefits of Act of 1987 due to exorbitant membership fees, thereby rendering the provisions manifestly arbitrary," the plea states.
In particular, the petition objects to the sharp increase in lifetime membership fees from ₹17,500 to ₹50,000, arguing that it makes the welfare scheme unaffordable for many lawyers, especially those just starting out.
According to the petition, expecting a new advocate to pay such a large amount early in their career is unreasonable and difficult to manage.
The plea also states that though the welfare stamp fee has quadrupled, there has been no corresponding increase in the compensation advocates receive when they retire from practice The amount an advocate receives after 40 years of practice is far less than the contributions they are now required to make, it adds.
Another key issue raised is the extension of the qualifying period required to receive the maximum compensation. The petition points out that very few advocates will be able to complete 50 years of active practice, meaning most will never qualify for the highest payout.
Even those who complete 40 years of service receive significantly lower compensation, despite having contributed through stamps and membership fees throughout their careers, the plea states.
The petition also highlights that advocates who are not even members of the fund are required to affix welfare stamps on every vakalatnama.
This forces them to make financial contributions to the fund without giving them any right to receive benefits in return, it contends.
The plea urges the Court to declare the amended provisions unconstitutional and seeks a direction for their reconsideration byt the State and the Bar Council.
Alternatively, it prays that the compensation schedule be updated so that retiring advocates receive payouts that genuinely reflect the increased financial contributions made over the course of their careers.
The plea has been filed through advocates Sunil Samdaria, Ramesh Chand Bairwa and Arihant Samdaria.