Mandatory Affixation Of Welfare Fund Stamp On Vakalatnama Valid Under List III Entries 23 & 26, Not A Toll On Right To Practice: Telangana High Court Upholds Sections 12 & 12A Of Advocates Welfare Fund Act

"The sum that is asked of every Advocate when a Vakalat is filed is slight. It is not a toll on the right to practise. It is the thread by which a profession ties together those who are fortunate with those who fall into hardship." Upholding the statutory mandate requiring advocates to affix welfare fund stamps on vakalatnamas, the Telangana High Court on November 3, 2026, held that Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 fall squarely within the State’s legislative competence under Entries 23 and 26 of the Concurrent List and do not violate the fundamental right to practice law under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed that the compulsory welfare stamp is a procedural condition attached to the filing of a vakalatnama rather than an unconstitutional restriction on legal practice.

The petitioner, an advocate appearing in person, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 12 and Section 12A of the Act, which mandated affixing welfare fund stamps on every vakalatnama, an amount progressively enhanced over the years up to Rs. 250, apportioned between the Advocates Welfare Fund and the Advocates Clerks Welfare Fund. The petitioner contended that the levy amounted to colourable legislation encroaching upon Parliament's exclusive domain under Entry 78 of List I, was repugnant to the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Central Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001, and unlawfully curtailed the right to practice under Article 19(1)(g). The State countered that the enactment in pith and substance constitutes a social security measure within the Concurrent List.

The Court addressed whether Sections 12 and 12A of the Act are ultra vires the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 78 of List I or constitute colourable legislation, whether the provisions are repugnant to the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001 in the absence of fresh Presidential assent under Article 254(2), whether the mandatory stamp violates Articles 14, 19(1)(c), or 19(1)(g), and whether the collection is invalid under Article 283 for not being credited to the State Consolidated Fund.

State legislature possesses competent power under Concurrent List to establish advocate welfare schemes

The Division Bench rejected the challenge grounded on legislative incompetence, ruling that the enactment must be tested on the doctrine of pith and substance. The Court held that the true character of the legislation is to provide social security to members of the legal profession and their clerks, which falls squarely within Entry 23 and Entry 26 of List III.

The Bench distinguished the scope of Entry 78 of List I, clarifying that the impugned provisions do not determine eligibility, enrollment, or conditions for practicing before the High Court.

"Entry 78 of List I deals with the qualifications and the right to practise before the High Courts. The impugned provisions do not prescribe who may be enrolled as an Advocate. They do not regulate the conduct of Advocates, or confer, or take away the right to appear. They provide only that a prescribed welfare stamp be affixed to a Vakalat and that the proceeds be applied to welfare purposes. Any effect on the field of Entry 78 is incidental."

No repugnancy with Central enactments; subsequent enhancements do not require fresh Presidential assent

Examining the argument on repugnancy under Article 254, the Court held that neither the Advocates Act, 1961 nor the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001 conflicts with the State Act. Sections 6 and 7 of the Advocates Act merely empower Bar Councils to constitute welfare funds without prohibiting State legislatures from introducing compulsory welfare contributions.

The Court further observed that the Parliament's silence on introducing a compulsory levy under the Central Act of 2001 cannot be construed as a negative command or an intention to occupy the entire field. Because the parent State Act had already received Presidential assent in 1987 and the subsequent amendments only altered the stamp's monetary valuation without changing the scheme's character, no fresh assent under Article 254(2) was necessitated.

Welfare stamp is a reasonable procedural regulation and does not breach Articles 14, 19(1)(c), or 19(1)(g)

Addressing fundamental rights, the Bench held that the Welfare Fund Committee is a statutory body rather than a private congregation, and contributing towards it does not compel an advocate to join any association in violation of Article 19(1)(c). The requirement was held to be a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) serving the larger public and professional interest.

"The welfare stamp does not prevent the petitioner from practising. It does not limit the number of cases he may take up. It is a small recurring contribution that supports a fund for Advocates who face illness or old age or other hardship and for the clerks who assist them. A contribution of that kind towards the welfare of the profession is a reasonable burden... The requirement is procedural and attaches only to the manner of filing."

Statutory welfare contribution distinct from tax; proceeds impressed with statutory trust outside Article 283

The Court dismissed the argument that the exaction is illegal because it represents neither a tax nor a voluntary donation. The Bench noted that a statutory welfare levy constitutes a well-recognized independent class of exaction authorized by legislative enactment.

The Bench also rejected the contention under Article 283, holding that the collected funds are impressed with a statutory trust dedicated to the welfare of lawyers and clerks, thereby not forming part of the general revenues of the State required to be credited into the Consolidated Fund.

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court held that Sections 12 and 12A of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 are constitutionally valid, legally enacted within the State's competence under the Concurrent List, and represent a vital collective safety net for the legal fraternity that warrants no judicial interference.

Date of Decision: November 3, 2026