A petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenges the 2020 amendments to the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987. Advocate Satish Kumar Khandal says vakalatnama stamp fees rose fourfold without benefits, questioning Sections 2, 4, 5 and 7 thereof.
A petition has been submitted to the Rajasthan High Court contesting several amendments to the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, introduced in 2020.
Advocate Satish Kumar Khandal has argued that these amendments significantly increase the vakalatnama stamp fee by more than four times without enhancing the benefits for lawyers.
He challenges the validity of Sections 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 2020.
Also Read: 76 Lawyers Designated as Senior Advocates by Punjab and Haryana High Court
These sections raised the membership fee for the welfare fund, increased the welfare stamp fee from Rs.25 to Rs.100, mandated an annual increase of Rs.10 in the stamp cost, and extended the qualifying period for maximum retirement benefits from 40 years to 50 years.
Khandal contends that this new structure deviates from the intent of the 1987 Act, which aimed to provide welfare protection to as many advocates as possible.
The plea asserts,
“Petitioner challenges the impugned provisions for the cause of the members of legal fraternity, who have been put to disadvantageous position because of the impugned provisions despite giving their blood and sweat to the profession… The impugned amendment is manifestly arbitrary and is patently illegal and invalid and therefore is liable to be quashed and set-aside,”
He highlights that the sharp increase in fees, without a corresponding rise in benefits, renders the new structure unjust and legally questionable.
The Plea States,
“The aforesaid amendments… has placed immense financial burden upon the Advocates and has de facto excluded many advocates from getting the benefits of Act of 1987 due to exorbitant membership fees, thereby rendering the provisions manifestly arbitrary,”
In particular, the petition criticizes the substantial jump in lifetime membership fees from Rs.17,500 to Rs.50,000, arguing that it makes the welfare scheme prohibitive for many lawyers, especially those at the beginning of their careers.
The petition mentions that expecting new advocates to pay such a considerable amount early on is unreasonable and challenging to manage.
Furthermore, it points out that although the welfare stamp fee has increased fourfold, there has been no corresponding rise in the compensation that advocates receive upon retirement. Advocates who have worked for 40 years receive far less than their contributions, according to the petition.
Another critical concern raised is the extension of the period required to qualify for maximum compensation. The petition notes that very few advocates will be able to practice for 50 years, meaning most will never qualify for the highest payout.
Even those who complete 40 years of service receive significantly lower compensation, despite having consistently contributed through stamps and membership fees, as highlighted in the plea.
Additionally, the petition emphasizes that advocates who are not members of the fund are still required to affix welfare stamps on every vakalatnama, obligating them to contribute financially without entitling them to any benefits.
The plea calls for the Court to declare the amended provisions unconstitutional and requests that they be reevaluated by the State and the Bar Council.
As an alternative, it urges an update to the compensation schedule so that retiring advocates receive payouts that accurately reflect their increased financial contributions throughout their careers.
The petition has been filed through advocates Sunil Samdaria, Ramesh Chand Bairwa, and Arihant Samdaria.