Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has upheld the mandatory Advocates Welfare Fund stamp on Vakalatnamas, ruling that the State Legislature has the power to collect contributions for the welfare of lawyers and their clerks.
The Court dismissed a petition challenging Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987.
The Court said that the contribution is a reasonable requirement and does not violate an advocate’s fundamental right to practise law. It also explained that the money helps provide financial support to advocates and their clerks during difficult times.
Telangana Advocate Welfare Stamp: High Court Dismisses Advocate’s Petition
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda delivered the decision in Vijay Gopal v. State of Telangana.
Read also: Supreme Court Recognises Internet Access As A Fundamental Right For Children
The petition was filed by advocate Vijay Gopal, who challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987.
These provisions require advocates to affix a prescribed welfare fund stamp to Vakalatnamas filed before courts in the State.
A Vakalatnama is a legal document through which a person authorises an advocate to represent them in court.
The lawyer argued that making this payment compulsory was unconstitutional and affected the rights of advocates. However, the High Court rejected his arguments and dismissed the writ petition.
Why Did The Advocate Challenge The Welfare Fund Stamp
Advocate Vijay Gopal argued that the State Legislature did not have the power to make such a contribution compulsory.
He said that Parliament has exclusive authority over certain matters related to the right to practise before High Courts under Entry 78 of the Union List of the Constitution.
He also argued that the compulsory payment was similar to an enforced donation and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
According to the petitioner, the welfare stamp amount had increased several times over the years..It increased from ₹8 in 1992 to ₹100 and was subsequently raised to ₹250 in 2025.
He questioned why advocates should be required to make this payment when the Central Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001 does not make such a contribution compulsory for practising law.
What Did The Telangana Government Argue
The State government opposed the petition and defended the compulsory welfare contribution.
Assistant Government Pleader D. Surender Kumar argued that the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act was introduced as a social welfare measure.
He explained that the law falls under Entries 23 and 26 of the Concurrent List of the Constitution.
These entries cover social security and the legal profession, allowing both Parliament and State Legislatures to make laws on these subjects.
The government also argued that the welfare fund supports advocates and their clerks during illness, old age and other difficult situations.
It further stated that the contribution is not an ordinary donation to a private organisation. Instead, it is a statutory payment collected for a specific welfare purpose.
Why Did The High Court Uphold The Mandatory Welfare Stamp
The High Court agreed with the State government’s arguments and explained why the welfare stamp requirement was constitutionally valid.
1. State Legislature Has The Power To Make This Law
The Bench observed that the Telangana government has the legislative power to introduce laws related to social security and welfare within the legal profession.
The Court explained that Entry 78 of the Union List deals with the qualifications and the right to practise before High Courts. However, the challenged provisions do not decide who can become an advocate or take away anyone’s right to practise law.
They only require a welfare stamp when a Vakalatnama is filed. Therefore, the Court held that the State law does not directly interfere with Parliament’s powers.
2. Welfare Stamp Does Not Violate The Right To Practise Law
The petitioner argued that the compulsory contribution violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which protects the right to practise any profession. However, the Bench rejected this argument.
It observed that the welfare stamp does not stop an advocate from practising law or limit the number of cases they can handle.
The Court considered the contribution a reasonable requirement because it supports advocates and their clerks during difficult situations.
3. No Conflict With Central Laws
The Court also examined whether the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 conflicts with the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001. It found no direct conflict between these laws.
The Bench explained that the Central law does not prohibit State Legislatures from introducing a separate compulsory contribution for a welfare fund. Therefore, the Court held that fresh Presidential assent was not necessary for the subsequent amendments.
4. Unstamped Vakalatnamas Can Be Rejected
The High Court also examined the Registry’s decision to refuse Vakalatnamas without the prescribed welfare stamp. It held that this is a procedural requirement under the existing law.
The Registry is required to follow the law and cannot accept a Vakalatnama that does not meet the prescribed conditions.
How Does The Telangana Advocate Welfare Stamp Help Lawyers And Their Clerks
The High Court highlighted the importance of providing financial protection to members of the legal profession.
Advocates and their clerks may face financial difficulties because of illness, accidents, old age or sudden death.
Such situations can affect not only the professionals but also their families and dependents.
The Court observed that small contributions from many advocates can create a collective safety net for people facing difficult circumstances.
It also highlighted that the welfare fund can provide timely financial support to widows, children and elderly parents of advocates who lose their lives.
The Bench explained that the contribution is not a charge for the right to practise law. Instead, it is a way to support members of the legal profession during times of hardship.
Read also: Article 19 Explained: Supreme Court Declares Mother Tongue Education a Fundamental Right
FAQs
Advocate Vijay Gopal challenged Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, arguing that the compulsory welfare contribution was unconstitutional.
The Telangana High Court upheld the mandatory welfare fund stamp requirement on Vakalatnamas. It ruled that the State Legislature has the power to collect contributions for the welfare of advocates and their clerks.
No. The Telangana High Court held that the welfare stamp requirement does not unreasonably restrict an advocate’s right to practise law under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is a statutory contribution intended to support advocates and their clerks.
