The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the establishment of a ‘Professional Assistance Fund for Young Lawyers’ in every state and Union Territory (UT), warning that the legal profession risks a brain drain if financially struggling young lawyers are forced to give up litigation for more secure jobs.
In an important intervention aimed at addressing the growing economic challenges faced by young lawyers, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Mohana noted that the early years of legal practice often impose severe financial hardships, especially on first generation lawyers and those from economically deprived backgrounds, resulting in many talented lawyers leaving the profession before they can prove themselves.
“It is this period of disruption that often forces qualified and promising young lawyers to abandon practice at the Bar altogether. We recognize that such attrition may lead to a form of professional ‘brain drain’, reducing the Bar’s ability to attract and retain young and meritorious people,” the jury said.
The court’s directions came while hearing a petition filed by a group of six women lawyers, argued by Senior Advocate Monica Goosen, regarding infrastructure and welfare measures for members of the Bar Association across the country.
Taking into account the broader systemic issues affecting the legal profession, the Commission has expanded its focus beyond physical facilities to include the economic vulnerability of junior lawyers.
The court stressed that litigation represents a uniquely challenging professional journey, and noted that a young lawyer entering the profession does not immediately inherit an office, clients, a library, or a predictable source of income.
“The early years are largely devoted to observing court proceedings, assisting seniors, studying case files, understanding procedural intricacies, and gradually acquiring lawyering skills and courtroom craftsmanship,” the council said, adding that many junior lawyers survive on modest salaries that are often insufficient to cover even basic living expenses.
The court said the problem is particularly acute for first-generation lawyers and those from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom face pressure to become the main breadwinners in their families immediately after completing their education.
“In the face of these pressures, many are forced to pursue alternative careers that offer greater financial stability from the start, despite their genuine interest and potential in litigation,” the jury noted.
To address this problem, the Supreme Court proposed setting up the Fund under the control of the relevant high courts or an independent body constituted by the Union and State governments.
“It therefore appears to us that a Professional Assistance Fund for Young Lawyers should be established and it should be established under the exclusive control of the Judicial High Courts or an independent body constituted by the Union of India and the State Governments,” the court said.
The Authority also specified a broad framework for financing the proposed fund. He suggested that Parliament and state legislatures should consider a legal scheme that would allow organized donations from senior successful lawyers and other members of the legal fraternity.
In addition, the Court proposed that a portion of the court fees collected by the judiciary and a significant share of the costs imposed by the courts in judicial proceedings should be transferred to the Fund. To encourage contributions, the Commission proposed incentives such as tax credits, national awards, and other forms of donor recognition.
Under the proposed framework, qualified young lawyers would receive a reasonable monthly salary during the formative years of their practice while being placed with experienced members of the bar and providing professional services as associates. The court suggested that this support would typically continue for the first three years of practice and then be gradually reduced, eventually ending after six to seven years when the lawyer is expected to achieve professional self-sufficiency.
The authority has also put forward a self-sustainable model under which lawyers who benefited from the fund during their initial years can later contribute to it through phased repayments once they become financially established.
The petition filed by advocates Sarika Tyagi, Seema Vashist, Asha Jyoti Arya, Bhanu Priya Sharma, Veena Nisar Khan and Snigdha also drew the attention of the court to the need for better infrastructure for women advocates across the country.
In response to this petition, the bench asserted that properly equipped ladies bar rooms and other basic facilities remain unavailable in majority of High Courts, District Courts, Tehsil Courts, Benches and Commissions.
She said the case was not merely a matter of administrative propriety but directly related to the constitutional values of dignity, safety and equal participation in public life. He added, “The issue goes beyond the scope of administrative expediency and touches on the values that lie at the heart of the constitutional guarantee of dignity and equal participation in public life.”
Realizing the broader ramifications of the issues raised, the court issued notice to all the states and union territories. The court asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, Advocates General of all states and Permanent Advocates for Union Territories to assist the court in developing a comprehensive framework.
