The Bombay High Court has taken up a petition filed by 21 young advocates seeking meaningful financial support for junior lawyers in Maharashtra, observing that the concerns raised deserve serious consideration. While issuing notice to the State and other respondents, the court directed them to explain what measures have been taken or are proposed to assist young advocates during the initial years of legal practice.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Saklen Mansur Mujawar and other young advocates, who argued that although the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1981 provides for welfare measures and financial assistance, its objectives have not been effectively achieved. They relied on a Bar Council of India circular recommending a minimum monthly stipend of ₹20,000 for junior advocates in urban areas and ₹15,000 in rural areas, contending that these recommendations have largely remained unimplemented.
The petition also referred to welfare initiatives adopted in several other States, including Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Puducherry, to highlight that similar support mechanisms already exist elsewhere.
Court's Observations
A Division Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande noted that the issue goes beyond the individual petitioners and concerns the larger community of young lawyers entering the profession. The Bench observed that the first few years of legal practice are often financially challenging and that all stakeholders should ensure young advocates are able to establish themselves instead of leaving the profession because of economic hardship.
Referring to the Supreme Court's recent observations in Sarika Tyagi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., the High Court highlighted the need for financial assistance to first-generation and economically disadvantaged young advocates.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench observed,
“The second issue raised herein is gender-neutral and concerns financial support for young advocates. It seems to us that this issue merits equally serious consideration.”
The High Court, however, declined to comment on the petitioners' submission regarding the availability of funds with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, stating that such issues could not be examined without hearing the respondents and receiving their reply.
Court's Decision
Finding merit in the broader issues raised, the Bombay High Court issued notice to the respondents, making it returnable on August 24, 2026. The court directed the respondents to file an affidavit explaining the steps already taken or proposed for providing financial assistance, stipends or similar welfare schemes for junior advocates in Maharashtra.
It also requested the authorities to consider the petition constructively and not treat the petitioners' efforts adversely.
Case Details
Case Title: Saklen Mansur Mujawar & Ors. v. The Chairman, Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee, Through The Advocate General of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (ST.) No. 6592 of 2026
Judge: Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande
Decision Date: August 3, 2026
-300x169.webp)
