Despite receiving Rs 100 crore from the Telangana government in 2022, the Bar Council has failed to explain how the funds were used or why more is needed, raising serious accountability concerns
Published Date – 9 June 2025, 12:46 PM
By Ananth Seth
The Vakalat Welfare Stamp is a cornerstone of India’s Legal ecosystem, funding a Welfare pool that supports advocates in times of need – retirement, illness or other hardships – ensuring they can continue contributing to justice.
However, the recent decision of the Bar Council of Telangana, to raise this fee from Rs 100 to Rs 250, a hefty 150% increase, has sparked concern and debate among lawyers. As a practising advocate in Telangana, I view this hike as arbitrary and unjustified. The opposition stems not from personal gain (or loss) but from its negative impact on access to justice and the undue incremental strain on clients and junior advocates.
The Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001, which governs States not having their own specific legislation on the matter, sets a national benchmark for the stamp fee at Rs 5 to Rs 25, making Telangana’s Rs 250 fee a whopping ten-fold higher – an anomaly begging justification.
Many States have pegged this fee below Rs 50 with some having it as low as Rs 20. If those States sustain Welfare Funds with modest fees, why does Telangana demand such a steep amount? This lack of rationale suggests the increase is excessive, disproportionately burdening advocates and clients here compared to elsewhere.
Beyond India, many jurisdictions tie professional Welfare Fee hikes to transparent and well-defined benefits, and stakeholder consultation. This misalignment with global best practices questions the policy’s adherence to modern standards of professional self-regulation and accountability, further undermining its legitimacy.
The opacity of the Telangana Bar Council compounds concerns. An RTI request filed during the Covid pandemic seeking the Welfare Fund’s financial status has remained – to the best of the public knowledge – unanswered. This is not just an oversight – it is a governance failure too.
Without disclosing the Fund’s balance, spending or needs, the Bar Council cannot substantiate a 150% hike. It has a moral and fiduciary duty to provide a detailed account of the Fund’s corpus, investments, and why current resources fall short. This silence breeds suspicion: is the increase driven by necessity or mismanagement or something else?
The argument that this cost is ultimately borne by the client and not the lawyer is a simplistic and somewhat callous deflection. While true in practice, it ignores the broader implications for access to justice. For the common citizen, litigation is often the last resort, undertaken at considerable financial and emotional cost.
The financial fallout, though nominal, is incremental, adding to the ever-increasing legal expenses for the clients. Junior advocates, already navigating the profession’s precarious early years, face a double blow. They often cover initial court fees themselves before passing costs on to clients, making this ‘Welfare’ hike ironically punitive for those it should protect. Thus, it has the potential to deepen the inequities within the legal fraternity.
Advocates have endured economic hardship, especially during the pandemic when court closures slashed incomes. Raising the fee now, without evidence of a fund crisis and real transparency regarding the ‘Welfare’ administered, feels like salt in the wound.
With rising operational costs – court fees, office expenses, professional dues – this hike has the potential to discourage new lawyers, shrinking the talent pool and threatening the profession’s future.
In 2022, the Telangana government was kind enough to allocate Rs 100 crore to the Welfare Fund but the State Bar Council has not bothered to offer reasons and explanations as to how this generous sum was managed or why it is insufficient, prompting questions about accountability. Before burdening advocates further, a comprehensive audit and public report are essential.
This arbitrary hike risks setting a dangerous precedent. Without consultation or justification, it could embolden other professional bodies to impose similar increases, eroding trust and consultative governance across fields.
The intent behind and the utility of the Welfare Fund is undisputed, but alternatives do exist for expanding the pool. The Bar Council could expand the contributor base through incentives, secure more government grants, or optimise investments – options that spread responsibility fairly rather than overburdening advocates, clients and the legal system.
This unilateral decision reflects administrative overreach, bypassing consultation with legal professionals, academics and consumer advocates. Such heavy-handedness could stifle legal aid innovation and deter young lawyers, harming representation quality in the long term.
Welfare contributions should enhance advocates’ lives, yet this increase lacks tangible benefits. In an era demanding financial transparency, the Bar Council’s opacity undermines faith in the system.
The argument is not against advocating welfare but for a fairer, just and transparent approach. A robust Fund is vital, but securing it by taxing justice seekers arbitrarily and inordinately is flawed.
(The author is a Hyderabad-based lawyer. Views are personal)
