“A contribution of that kind towards the welfare of the profession is a reasonable burden.” With that observation, the Telangana High Court has upheld the ₹250 welfare stamp on Vakalat, which every advocate must affix when filing a Vakalat, holding the levy a valid social welfare measure and “not a toll on the right to practise”.
Hyderabad: A constitutional challenge to Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 has failed in the Telangana High Court, which dismissed the writ petition against provisions that require a welfare fund stamp, now valued at ₹250, to be affixed on every Vakalat filed by an advocate, and that provide for the distribution of the money collected between the advocates’ and advocates’ clerks’ welfare funds [Vijay Gopal v. State of Telangana & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that the provisions are a valid exercise of the State’s legislative power, are not repugnant to central law and do not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(c) or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Where the Bench found no violation of rights
On Article 19(1)(c), the Court held that the petitioner is not compelled to join any association; he is only required to contribute to a statutory fund of which he is himself a potential beneficiary. On Article 19(1)(g), it held that the stamp neither prevents him from practising nor limits the number of cases he may take up, noting that the requirement is procedural and attaches only to the manner of filing:
“A contribution of that kind towards the welfare of the profession is a reasonable burden.”
On Article 14, the Court found no unequal treatment, since every advocate who files a Vakalat pays the same stamp value.
What the advocate-petitioner argued
Advocate Vijay Gopal, who appeared in person, attacked Section 12, which mandates the welfare fund stamp issued under the name ‘Nyayavadula Mariyu Vari Gumasthala Samkshema Nidhi’, and Section 12A, which divides the collections between the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund and the Telangana Advocates Clerks Welfare Fund. According to him, 86 per cent of the collection currently goes to the advocates’ fund and 14 per cent to the clerks’ fund.
The stamp, he submitted, was introduced in 1992 at ₹8 and was progressively raised to ₹250 in 2025. He argued that the law was colourable legislation because the subject falls under Entry 78 of List I (persons entitled to practise before the High Courts), that the amendments enhancing the stamp value lacked fresh Presidential assent under Article 254(2), and that the levy unreasonably restricted his rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(1)(c).
What the State said
The State contended that Section 12 is a validly enacted provision and that the filing section’s refusal to accept a Vakalat without the stamp merely gives effect to a subsisting statutory requirement. It argued that the Act is traceable to Entries 23 (social security and social insurance) and 26 (legal, medical and other professions) of List III, that it does not legislate on who may practise before the High Court, and that the welfare fund committee is a statutory body and not a private association.
Entry 78 touched only incidentally
Turning down the colourable legislation argument, the Bench held:
“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. Any effect on the field of Entry 78 is incidental.”
“Not a toll on the right to practise”
Describing the provisions as a social welfare measure for the legal profession, the Bench reflected on the uncertainty of life at the Bar:
“The stamp that is affixed to a Vakalat costs the contributor little and is soon forgotten. Gathered over many hands and many years it becomes the immediate financial support to which a widow or an orphaned child or an aged parent can turn before any other help arrives. A family that has lost its earning member has no time to wait for a remedy that is slow in coming.”
“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.”
Dismissing the petition, the Court concluded:
“The law protects the individual from arbitrary exactions. It does not exempt the individual from contributing towards a shared and lawful purpose. Hence, the amounts collected by the State under the Act are legal and warrant no interference by this Court.”
Why the judgment matters
Welfare stamp levies on Vakalats operate in several States and have faced challenges as their value has risen. The ruling places the Telangana levy within the State’s power over social security and the legal profession under the Concurrent List, and treats any overlap with the Union’s power over the right to practise as incidental.
By framing the stamp as a modest, uniform and procedural contribution to a fund from which the contributor can also benefit, the Court has set a clear test for similar challenges: a welfare levy that does not bar or ration practice will not be struck down merely because it is mandatory.
Case Title: Vijay Gopal v. State of Telangana & Ors. (title to be verified)
Bench: Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda, High Court for the State of Telangana
Date of Judgment: November 2026 (date to be verified)
Appearances: Petitioner-advocate Vijay Gopal in person; counsel for the State of Telangana