The Rajasthan High Court issued notice on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 2020, which amended the existing welfare fund framework applicable to advocates in the State. The petition was filed by a practising advocate who questioned the legality and fairness of the amendments on the ground that they imposed an excessive and disproportionate financial burden on advocates while failing to correspondingly enhance the benefits available under the welfare scheme. The High Court, upon preliminary consideration, found that the issues raised warranted examination and therefore directed the State and other respondents to file their replies.
The petition challenged amendments made to the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, particularly those increasing the stamp duty on vakalatnamas and revising the annual contribution payable by advocates to the welfare fund. Under the amended law, the vakalatnama stamp fee was increased significantly, with a provision for periodic increments. The petitioner contended that the steep increase was arbitrary and unreasonable, especially considering the financial realities faced by a large section of advocates, including young practitioners and those practising in rural or lower-income areas.
It was argued that the stated objective of strengthening the welfare fund and expanding its coverage had not been achieved through the amendments. According to the petitioner, instead of encouraging wider participation, the enhanced financial obligations discouraged advocates from enrolling in or continuing with the welfare fund. The plea asserted that the amendments effectively excluded a significant number of advocates from the benefits of the scheme, thereby defeating its welfare-oriented purpose.
The petition further highlighted that while contributions and fees were substantially increased, the benefits payable to advocates under the welfare fund had not been revised proportionately. It was pointed out that lump-sum benefits payable on completion of long years of practice had remained largely unchanged, despite the sharp rise in contributions collected from members. The petitioner argued that this resulted in an unreasonable accumulation of funds without equitable distribution of benefits, making the scheme disproportionately advantageous only to a small section of advocates who completed extremely long tenures of practice.
On constitutional grounds, the petitioner contended that the amendment violated the right to equality by creating an unreasonable and discriminatory classification among advocates. It was argued that the scheme disproportionately burdened the majority of advocates who contribute to the fund but are unlikely to receive substantial benefits due to the structure of eligibility criteria. The plea asserted that such a legislative design lacked rational nexus with the stated objective of advocate welfare and amounted to arbitrary exercise of legislative power.
The High Court noted that the challenge raised significant questions regarding the balance between mandatory contributions and the actual welfare benefits conferred on members of the legal profession. Considering the broader implications of the amendments for advocates across the State, the Court decided to issue notice and seek responses from the State authorities. The matter has been posted for further hearing, during which the Court will examine whether the amendments align with constitutional guarantees and the principles governing welfare legislation for professional communities.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.