Telangana high court upholds mandatory welfare fund stamps for lawyers | Hyderabad News

Hyderabad: Telangana high court observed that professional life, particularly at the Bar, was full of uncertainties. Illness, accidents or sudden death could destroy a family’s security, and advocates’ welfare funds provided immediate support to the members’ widows, children and aged parents.The court said small contributions by many advocates in the form of mandatory affixing of welfare fund stamps on vakalats filed by lawyers in courts created a safety net for those in hardship and found no constitutional reason to interfere with the law, which was “not a toll on the right to practise”.A division bench of acting Chief Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda made these observations in an order dismissing a petition filed by advocate Vijay Gopal challenging the mandatory affixing of welfare fund stamps on vakalats filed by lawyers in courts.Vijay Gopal filed the petition seeking to declare Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, as unconstitutional. The petitioner had challenged the collection of the welfare fund stamp. From the welfare fund stamp fee of Rs250, Rs215 goes to the Advocates Welfare Fund and Rs35 to the Advocates Clerks Welfare Fund.The petitioner contended that the levy was beyond the legislative competence of the state, amounted to colourable legislation, violated the right to practise law, and was contrary to constitutional provisions. He argued that advocates could not be compelled to pay such welfare contributions and that the amount was not deposited in the state exchequer.The state opposed the plea, saying the stamp was a statutory welfare contribution and not a tax or donation. It argued that the fund was meant for the benefit of advocates and clerks and that the state was competent to enact such welfare legislation.Agreeing with the state’s argument, the court held that the law was within the state’s powers and did not violate any Articles of the Constitution. It said the requirement was only procedural and did not prevent any advocate from practising.