Telangana High Court upholds mandate to affix advocate welfare fund stamp on Vakalatnamas

The Telangana High Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of provisions mandating the affixation of an Advocates Welfare Fund stamp on every Vakalatnama (document by which litigants authorise lawyers to represent them) filed before courts across the State [Vijay Gopal v. State of Telangana].

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer challenging Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987.

The Court held that the mandate to affix an advocates' welfare fund stamp is not an unreasonable restriction on the right to practise law. Rather, the funds collected through this exercise form a collective safety net designed to protect advocates and their clerks during times of distress, the Court observed.

"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. 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," the Bench observed.

Reflecting on the precarious nature of the legal profession, the Court added,

"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... 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 writ petition was filed by advocate Vijay Gopal, who appeared in person to challenge the requirement of affixing the welfare stamp on vakalats, as mandated under the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act.

Gopal argued that the levy was unconstitutional and outside the legislative competence of the State legislature. He contended that regulating the right to practise before High Courts falls exclusively within the domain of Parliament under Entry 78 of the Union List in Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.

He further submitted that the levy was a colourable exercise of power and amounted to an enforced donation. He added that the gradual increase in the stamp value - from ₹8 in 1992 to ₹100, and subsequently to ₹250 in 2025 - violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(c), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that the Act is, in pith and substance, a social welfare measure. Assistant Government Pleader D Surender Kumar argued that the legislation falls squarely within the Concurrent List of subjects on which both the State and the Central government can make laws.

He pointed out that the lawyers' welfare law fell under the categories of Entry 23 (social security) and Entry 26 (legal profession) of the Concurrent List.

The Bench agreed with the State's contentions. It noted that the statute does not prescribe eligibility or bar advocates from appearing in court.

"Entry 78 of List I (Union List) 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... Any effect on the field of Entry 78 is incidental," the Court ruled.

The Court also rejected the argument that the State amendments required fresh Presidential assent under Article 254(2) (requirement of presidential assent if a State law conflicts with a Central law) of the Constitution.

The Court held that there was no real conflict or repugnancy between the State enactment and the Central Advocates Act, 1961 or the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001.

Addressing the challenge under Article 19(1)(g), the Bench observed that the Registry's refusal to accept an unstamped Vakalatnama is merely a procedural requirement attached to filing.

Holding that the welfare fund exists to ensure that "grief is not made heavier by want," the High Court dismissed the petition.

[Read Order]