The Telangana High Court has upheld the mandatory requirement of affixing an Advocates Welfare Fund stamp on every Vakalatnama filed before courts in the State, rejecting a challenge to Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that the welfare contribution is a valid statutory requirement and does not amount to an unreasonable restriction on an advocate's right to practise law.
Background
The petition was filed by advocate Vijay Gopal, who appeared as a party-in-person, challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987.
Under the statutory framework, advocates are required to affix a welfare fund stamp to their Vakalatnamas. The contribution, which was initially ₹8 in 1992, gradually increased over the years. It reached ₹100 in 2018 and was further enhanced to ₹250 in 2025.
The petitioner argued that the State Legislature lacked the authority to impose such a compulsory contribution, as the regulation of advocates' right to practise before High Courts falls within Parliament's legislative domain under Entry 78 of the Union List.
He also contended that the requirement amounted to an enforced donation, violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, and required fresh Presidential assent following subsequent amendments.
The State opposed the petition, maintaining that the legislation was a social welfare measure intended to support advocates and their clerks.
Examining the legislative competence of the State, the Bench held that the Act primarily concerns social security and welfare within the legal profession. It falls under Entries 23 and 26 of the Concurrent List, which permit State legislation on these subjects.
The Court clarified:
"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."
The Bench also rejected the argument that the compulsory contribution interfered with the fundamental right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g).
It observed that the welfare stamp does not prevent advocates from practising law or restrict the number of cases they can handle. Instead, it supports advocates facing illness, old age and other hardships, along with the clerks who assist them.
The Court further explained:
"The welfare stamp does not prevent the petitioner from practising. It does not limit the number of cases he may take up. It is a small recurring contribution that supports a fund for Advocates who face illness or old age or other hardship and for the clerks who assist them."
On the question of Presidential assent, the Bench found no direct conflict between the State legislation and the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001. Therefore, fresh Presidential assent was not necessary for the subsequent amendments.
It also held that the Registry's refusal to accept a Vakalatnama without the prescribed stamp was simply compliance with the statutory requirement.
Concluding that the challenged provisions were within the legislative competence of the State and did not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(c) or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Bench accordingly upheld the validity of Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, and declined to interfere with the mandatory welfare stamp requirement.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vijay Gopal v. State of Telangana & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 13352 of 2025
Judges: Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda
Decision Date: 3 November 2026
