The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State Bar Council, in consultation with the two High Court bar associations, to frame guidelines within six months for a minimum stipend to junior advocates for three years, and to hold an enquiry into why five advocates in a pending case are not paying their junior a stipend.
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council, in consultation with the M.P. High Court Bar Association and the M.P. High Court Advocates’ Bar Association, to lay down within six months a guideline for a minimum stipend to be paid to junior advocates for three years, in urban and rural areas, after a junior counsel told the Court that she was not being paid any stipend [Vipin Pandey v. Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur and Others].
Justice Vishal Dhagat passed the order on September 28, 2026 in W.P. No. 7749 of 2005. The order also directs the State Bar Council to hold an enquiry. It records no finding against any advocate.
How it arose
Counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel was busy elsewhere that day. On being asked, the junior counsel appearing in the matter told the Court that no stipend was being paid to her.
The Court’s directions
The Court noted that a circular of the Bar Council of India dated October 15, 2024 directs all State Bar Councils that a minimum stipend be provided to junior advocates for at least three years from their engagement, and recommends Rs 20,000 per month in urban areas and Rs 15,000 per month in rural areas. It observed that the circular is only recommendatory. It therefore held that the State Bar Council, in consultation with the two bar associations, should lay down a guideline for a minimum stipend for three years in urban and rural areas, and that the State Bar Council, as the regulatory body, has a heavy burden to see that junior advocates are paid a stipend to cover their expenses and transport. It asked that a decision be taken within six months.
The Court further directed the State Bar Council to hold an enquiry into why five advocates in the case, Rajesh Dubey, Aniruddh Kumar Mishra, Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi, Dhananjay Chaturvedi and Naveen Kumar Pathak, are not paying a stipend to the junior counsel. The State Bar Council and the two bar associations were directed to take note of the position and see that all junior advocates are paid a stipend for the work they do for their seniors, so that they can meet their day-to-day expenses while learning in the early phase of practice, when they have no work of their own. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to all three bodies for compliance.
The case
Since the arguing counsel was unavailable, the case was adjourned, and the Registry was directed to list it for final hearing. The writ petition, filed in 2005 against Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur, was not otherwise dealt with in this order.
Why it matters
The order takes a recommendation of the Bar Council of India and asks the State Bar Council to turn it into a binding guideline for Madhya Pradesh within a fixed period. It also directs an enquiry in a specific case, which is unusual for a court dealing with a routine adjournment request.
The order does not itself fix an amount or find that any advocate has breached a duty, and the enquiry is to be held by the State Bar Council. What the guideline will provide, and whether it will bind lawyers in the State, will depend on the State Bar Council’s decision.
Case Title: Vipin Pandey v. Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur and Others [W.P. No. 7749 of 2005]
Bench: Justice Vishal Dhagat, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur
Date of Order: September 28, 2026
Appearances: A junior advocate appeared for the petitioner, and Advocate Divy Krishna Bilaiya appeared for the respondent.