Observing that financial hardship is forcing many young advocates to leave litigation, the Supreme Court called for the creation of a Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund across all States and Union Territories. The Court said a dedicated fund could help overcome economic barriers and prevent brain drain in the legal profession.
Observing that the legal profession may face a brain drain if financially burdened young lawyers are compelled to leave litigation for careers with greater financial stability, the Supreme Court on Friday, June 19, 2026, directed the establishment of a “Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund” in every State and Union Territory.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana said that the initial years of legal practice often bring severe financial strain, especially for first-generation advocates and those coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
It further noted that many promising young lawyers are driven out of the profession because they must continue supporting their families as primary breadwinners.
The Bench also acknowledged that access to a financial and social support network can help young advocates manage the uncertainty that typically marks the early phase of practice. It observed that whether a lawyer stays in litigation is frequently influenced more by economic pressures than by merit or professional aptitude.
Adding that the absence of steady client flow and the limited remuneration available during the initial years can lead to acute financial hardship, the Bench said,
“A young first-generation lawyer entering the Bar does not immediately inherit an office, a library, a stable clientele, or a predictable source of income. During this formative period, many junior advocates remain dependent upon modest stipends paid by their seniors or, in some places, by local Bar Associations, which are often insufficient to meet even their basic living expenses,”
The Bench issued these directions while hearing a petition filed by a group of six women lawyers seeking enhanced infrastructure and welfare measures for members of the Bar across the country.
Senior advocate Monika Gusain, appearing for the petitioners, argued that young lawyers encounter multiple systemic barriers and roadblocks during the beginning of their practice, including the lack of a fixed stipend to help them cope with financial instability.
She submitted that the Supreme Court has now required candidates to undergo three years of legal practice before appearing for the judicial service examination. However, she argued that, in the absence of any stipend or institutional support, many women are facing significant challenges in taking up legal practice.
To respond to these concerns, the apex court ordered that the proposed fund be placed under the control of the jurisdictional High Courts or an autonomous body created by the Union and State governments in consultation with each other.
The Bench said,
“It, thus, seems to us that a Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund must be created and should be established under the exclusive control of the jurisdictional High Courts or an autonomous body constituted by the Union of India in consultation with the State Governments. A framework of such nature will inspire greater confidence amongst prospective donors and contributors to the Fund,”
The Bench also outlined potential sources of funding for the scheme. It suggested that Parliament and State legislatures consider putting in place a statutory framework enabling structured contributions by successful senior advocates and other members of the legal fraternity.
In addition, the court proposed that a portion of court fees and a significant share of costs imposed in judicial proceedings be channelled into the fund. It further recommended incentives to encourage giving, including tax exemptions, national awards, and other forms of recognition for donors.
The court also envisaged a “self-sustaining model”, under which advocates who receive financial support in the early years would contribute back to the corpus once they become financially stable and establish themselves professionally.
The Bench said,
“Such financial assistance may be proportionately reduced over time, finally coming to an end after 7 years of practice. This is likely to coincide with the young lawyer eventually developing self-sufficiency and establishing an independent practice,”
The petition filed by advocates Sarika Tyagi, Seema Vashisth, Asha Jyoti Arya, Bhanu Priya Sharma, Veena Nisar Khan, and Snigdha also highlighted the lack of properly equipped Ladies’ Bar Rooms and other basic facilities in a large number of High Courts, district courts, tehsil courts, tribunals, and commissions. The petitioners contended that insufficient infrastructure restricts women advocates from carrying out their professional duties effectively.
Recognising that these issues cannot be dismissed as mere administrative inconveniences, the Bench stressed that although women’s representation in the legal profession has increased over the years, meaningful inclusion requires appropriate infrastructure and support to ensure women can work on an equal footing with men.
Adding that the concerns strike at the “heart of the constitutional guarantee of dignity and equal participation in public life”, the Bench observed,
“The provision of such essential facilities prima facie bears a direct nexus with the fundamental guarantee of life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution….When women advocates are required to spend substantial portions of their day within court premises, the availability of basic infrastructure necessary for their comfort, privacy, safety, and professional functioning assumes utmost significance,”
Taking note of the “wider ramifications” of the issues raised, the court issued notice to all States and Union Territories and asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani, the Advocate Generals of the States, and the standing counsel for Union Territories to assist it in developing a comprehensive framework. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on July 17.