The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to constitute a fresh committee to examine the grievances and welfare needs of Advocates’ Clerks across the State. In an important order passed on August 13, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai rejected the recommendations of an earlier committee constituted by the State Government and directed that the issue be reconsidered by a new committee consisting of senior legal and government officials. The Court also strongly criticised the stand taken by the Uttar Pradesh Finance Department, describing its view that a welfare policy for Advocates’ Clerks would necessarily create financial liability for the State as “clearly arbitrary” and lacking cogent reasoning.
The proceedings arose from a writ petition filed in 2017 by Sushil Kumar Srivastava seeking a direction to the State Government to formulate a comprehensive welfare policy for Advocates’ Clerks. The petitioner described Advocates’ Clerks as an important professional class that performs essential functions connected with the administration of justice. According to the petition, Advocates’ Clerks assist lawyers in several court-related activities and act as an important link between advocates, court offices and the Registry. Despite their contribution to the justice-delivery system, the petitioner argued that they generally lack adequate social security and welfare protection.
The petition highlighted the nature of work performed by Advocates’ Clerks. Their responsibilities can begin from the stage of filing a petition or other court proceeding and may continue through obtaining certified copies, coordinating with Registry officials, removing defects in pleadings and completing other procedural requirements. Although they are not employees of the courts, their day-to-day functioning is closely connected with court administration. The petitioner therefore argued that their work should be recognised as an integral component of the justice-delivery system and that appropriate welfare measures should be created to protect them from financial insecurity.
One of the principal concerns raised before the High Court was the lack of long-term social-security benefits available to Advocates’ Clerks. The petition stated that their income generally comes from the advocates with whom they work and that, unlike many organised categories of workers, they ordinarily do not have comprehensive medical insurance, pension benefits or other forms of social security. The petitioner further pointed out that clerks may lose their source of livelihood when they become old, physically incapacitated or otherwise unable to continue working. In such circumstances, they may have no structured retirement or welfare benefit to fall back upon.
The petition also brought to the Court's attention the fact that several other States have already adopted welfare measures for Advocates’ Clerks. The petitioner referred to arrangements existing in States including Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Jharkhand and Telangana. These examples were relied upon to demonstrate that the concept of a dedicated welfare mechanism for Advocates’ Clerks was not unprecedented and that similar measures had already been recognised in other parts of the country.
The issue had previously come before the Allahabad High Court in the context of the welfare of Advocates’ Clerks. In April 2020, while dealing with proceedings concerning financially weaker advocates and their clerks, the High Court had observed that Advocates’ Clerks play an important role in court management. The Court had described them as a professional class whose services contribute to the functioning of the justice-delivery system. It had also taken note of legislation in other States, including the Kerala Advocates’ Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2003, which created a welfare fund for Advocates’ Clerks.
The Court's earlier observations were significant because they recognised that although Advocates’ Clerks are not employees of the judiciary, their services are closely connected with the functioning of courts. The High Court had noted that their work is not merely a personal service to an individual advocate but contributes to the functioning of the broader legal system. This earlier judicial recognition formed an important background to the present proceedings concerning the creation of a structured welfare policy in Uttar Pradesh.
In November 2022, the Uttar Pradesh Government informed the High Court that it had decided to constitute a committee to examine the issue of welfare measures for Advocates’ Clerks working throughout the State. The Court directed that the issue be brought to the attention of the Advocate General, while observing that Advocates’ Clerks were a “concomitant part of justice delivery system.” The State subsequently considered the matter through a committee, and its recommendations were eventually placed before the High Court through an affidavit filed on July 17, 2023.
The earlier committee consisted of senior officials representing several departments of the State Government. Its members included officials from the Law, Finance, Social Welfare and Labour Departments, along with the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council and a Special Secretary in the Law Department. The committee was therefore expected to examine the issue from legal, financial, social-welfare and labour perspectives and provide recommendations regarding the appropriate mechanism for protecting Advocates’ Clerks.
However, the recommendations of this earlier committee did not satisfy the High Court. The Bench found serious shortcomings in the committee's understanding of the actual working conditions and responsibilities of Advocates’ Clerks. The Court observed that the members of the committee were “probably” unaware of the functioning, remuneration, duties and, most importantly, the role played by Advocates’ Clerks in the administration of justice. The Court therefore concluded that the earlier committee's recommendations could not be treated as an adequate basis for deciding the welfare issue.
The Bench was particularly critical of the fact that, according to the Court, the only member of the earlier committee who possessed direct knowledge of the functioning of Advocates’ Clerks was the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council. However, the Court noted that even the recommendations made by the Bar Council Chairman had not been properly considered by the committee. This omission contributed to the Court's conclusion that the earlier committee had not adequately addressed the actual concerns and working conditions of Advocates’ Clerks.
The Finance Department's position became another major point of criticism. The Department had taken the view that implementation of a welfare policy for Advocates’ Clerks would result in financial liability for the State Government and would therefore require an appropriate decision at the government level. The High Court found this reasoning difficult to accept because, according to the petitioner's proposal, the welfare scheme could be funded without imposing a direct financial burden on the State exchequer.
The proposed mechanism involved creating a dedicated welfare fund into which a specified amount could be collected through tickets or stamps affixed to Vakalatnamas. The corpus generated through such contributions could then be utilised for the welfare of Advocates’ Clerks. The Court noted that if such a mechanism were adopted, the financial resources for the welfare scheme would come from the prescribed contributions rather than from direct expenditure by the State Government.
It was in this context that the High Court described the Finance Department's stand as “clearly arbitrary” and “bereft of any cogent reasoning.” The Court essentially found that the Department had proceeded on the assumption that the proposed welfare policy would necessarily create a financial burden on the State without properly considering the suggested funding mechanism. The observation reflects the Court's concern that the financial implications of a welfare proposal should be assessed on the basis of its actual structure rather than through a general assumption that government funds would necessarily be required.
The High Court did not, however, itself formulate a final welfare scheme for Advocates’ Clerks. Instead, it considered it appropriate for the State Government to undertake the exercise through a fresh committee that would have greater expertise and direct knowledge of the legal profession. The Court therefore rejected the earlier committee's recommendations and directed the constitution of a new committee to examine the grievances and make fresh recommendations to the State Government.
The composition of the new committee is notably different from the earlier committee. The High Court directed that it should include the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh or an Additional Advocate General with adequate experience at the Bar nominated by the Advocate General. This ensures that the committee will have direct senior legal expertise and an understanding of the functioning of the legal profession and courts.
The Court further directed that two Senior Advocates should be included in the committee, with one representing the Allahabad Bench and another representing the Lucknow Bench. This requirement is significant because the High Court operates through both its principal seat at Allahabad and its Lucknow Bench, and Advocates’ Clerks working at these two locations may face different practical circumstances. The inclusion of senior members of the Bar is intended to bring practical professional experience into the policy-making process.
The committee will also include one member of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, nominated by its Chairman. The Bar Council's involvement is particularly relevant because it represents the legal profession and is likely to have greater familiarity with the functioning of advocates and their clerks. The Court has additionally permitted the inclusion of Additional Chief Secretaries of relevant departments, including the Legal Remembrancer, as considered necessary.
The High Court has imposed a specific timetable for the entire exercise. The Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh has been directed to constitute the fresh committee within four weeks. After its constitution, the committee is required to consider the grievances of Advocates’ Clerks and submit its recommendations to the State Government. The State has further been directed to place a copy of those recommendations before the High Court through an affidavit.
The Court has also prescribed an overall maximum period of three months for completing the exercise. This timeline indicates that the Bench does not want the matter to remain pending indefinitely after the failure of the earlier committee to provide a satisfactory solution. The direction for a fresh committee, combined with a clearly defined deadline, creates a structured mechanism through which the State is expected to reconsider the welfare issue and return to the High Court with a concrete response.
The matter has been directed to be listed again on November 23, 2026, among the top ten cases. The listing provides the High Court with an opportunity to monitor compliance with its directions and examine the recommendations produced by the fresh committee. Consequently, the Court's involvement in the issue is expected to continue until there is greater clarity regarding the proposed welfare mechanism for Advocates’ Clerks in Uttar Pradesh.
The order has broader significance because Advocates’ Clerks occupy a somewhat unusual position within the legal system. They are not court employees, yet they perform numerous administrative and procedural functions that help advocates interact with the judicial system. Their work can include filing documents, coordinating with Registry officials, obtaining certified copies and ensuring that procedural defects are addressed. The High Court's approach recognises that the smooth functioning of courts depends not only on judges and advocates but also on several supporting professional groups.
At the same time, the Court's reasoning does not suggest that every welfare measure must necessarily be financed directly from the State's general revenues. The proposed welfare fund model indicates that a self-sustaining or contribution-based mechanism could potentially be explored. Such an approach could provide benefits such as medical assistance, retirement support or other forms of social security without necessarily requiring a substantial recurring burden on the government budget. The fresh committee will now have the opportunity to examine the financial and administrative feasibility of such alternatives.
The decision also highlights the importance of involving stakeholders with practical experience when governments formulate welfare policies. The Court's criticism of the previous committee was not simply that its recommendations were inadequate, but that several members apparently lacked sufficient understanding of the profession they were asked to evaluate. By specifically requiring senior advocates and a Bar Council representative to participate in the new committee, the High Court has sought to ensure that the lived realities and professional requirements of Advocates’ Clerks are properly considered.
Another important aspect of the ruling is the Court's emphasis on reasoned decision-making by government departments. The criticism of the Finance Department suggests that an administrative authority cannot reject a welfare proposal merely by invoking possible financial liability without examining the actual funding structure suggested by the stakeholders. Where an alternative mechanism is proposed that may avoid direct expenditure from the State exchequer, the financial implications must be assessed objectively and supported by a rational explanation.
The case also demonstrates how the judiciary can facilitate policy consideration without directly taking over the government's policy-making function. Rather than ordering the State to immediately implement a particular welfare scheme, the High Court has directed the government to conduct a fresh and informed examination through a properly constituted committee. The Court has therefore left the formulation of the precise policy to the executive while insisting that the process must be meaningful, informed and responsive to the actual concerns of Advocates’ Clerks.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court's order represents an important development in the long-running demand for a dedicated welfare policy for Advocates’ Clerks in Uttar Pradesh. The Court rejected the recommendations of the earlier committee after finding that it had not adequately understood the working conditions and role of Advocates’ Clerks. It also strongly criticised the Finance Department's assertion that a welfare policy would necessarily impose financial liability on the State, particularly because the proposed welfare fund could potentially be financed through contributions linked to Vakalatnama stamps or tickets. The Court has now directed the Chief Secretary to constitute a fresh, professionally representative committee within four weeks, with the entire exercise to be completed within three months. The committee's recommendations will subsequently be placed before the High Court, which will monitor the matter when it is listed on November 23, 2026. The decision therefore keeps alive the possibility of a structured welfare framework providing greater financial and social security to Advocates’ Clerks while recognising their important contribution to the administration of justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.