Twelve young lawyers from Maharashtra filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court, highlighting severe financial difficulties faced by young lawyers during the Covid 19 pandemic and continue to earn less than Rs One Lakh, post Covid. They pleaded for monetary support of Rs 5000 for the community through their first three years of legal practice.

Taking note of the plea the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne stated, “What is the statutory right? On a personal level, we support you. We agree with you...But principally, who will give this? Bar Council has no funds. Will you give any funds? There is no element of public interest in this. How is society in general concerned with stipend to young lawyers?”

The petitioners’ mentioned precedents set by other High Courts and the recommendation of the Bar Council of India (BCI) which has suggested that Rs.15,000 be allotted to young lawyers practising in rural areas and Rs.20,000 for lawyers practising in urban areas.They also submitted that similar schemes are being implemented in Delhi ,Tamil Nadu ,Kerala ,Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh High.

After hearing the PIL the bench noted that the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) in its response, submitted that implementing such a stipend policy would cost approximately Rs.155 Crore anually.The Judges sought clarity on how this amount can be sourced and the BCMG replied that unlike some other states, Maharashtra has not extended support for such schemes.

While acknowledging that they were sympathetic to the cause the bench was unclear however whether such claims could be legally sustained. Additionally, the bench sought clarification from the petitioners’ about their statutory right to file the PIL while also questioning the body that will bear allocation of funds. Adding that the Bar Council has no funds to allocate the bench also observed that the PIL lacks the element of public interest since the issue of stipend to young lawyers does not concern the society at large.the matter was adjourned for two weeks and the parties were directed to come up with more clarity on their statutory right to demand a stipend.

Source:-News