Vakil Help Desk News: the Telangana High Court has upheld the welfare-fund stamp that advocates must affix on every vakalat, holding that the levy under the Advocates Welfare Fund Act is a valid social-welfare measure and not a restriction on the right to practise.
Vakil Help Desk News, Litigation & Courts. The Telangana High Court has upheld the small welfare-fund stamp that an advocate must affix on every vakalat (the document by which a client authorises a lawyer to appear), rejecting a challenge that the levy was unconstitutional and an interference with the right to practise law.
What the case was about
Every advocate who files a vakalat in Telangana must pay a welfare-fund stamp — now Rs 250 — under Section 12 of the Telangana Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987. Under Section 12A, that money is shared between the Advocates Welfare Fund and the Advocates' Clerks Welfare Fund. The petitioner, an advocate appearing in person, argued that the stamp (which he said rose from Rs 8 in 1992 to Rs 250 in 2025) was unconstitutional on several grounds.
The arguments
- Wrong legislature: that the subject really belongs to Parliament under Entry 78 of List I (persons entitled to practise before the High Courts), so the State law was a ‘colourable’ attempt to legislate on something outside its power.
- Right to practise: that the levy was an unreasonable burden on the right to carry on a profession under Article 19(1)(g).
- Freedom of association: that forcing a contribution to a fund offended Article 19(1)(c).
What the Court held, in plain words
- It is a welfare measure, not a rule on who can practise. The stamp does not decide who may be enrolled as an advocate or who may appear in court. Any effect on the field of ‘practice’ is only incidental, so the State was within its power (the Court placed the subject within the Concurrent List entries on social security and the legal profession).
- No forced association. Paying into a statutory fund is not the same as being compelled to join an association; the advocate simply contributes to a fund he may himself benefit from. Article 19(1)(c) is not violated.
- No bar on practising. The stamp does not stop anyone from practising or cap the number of cases an advocate can take. It is a procedural requirement about how a vakalat is filed, so Article 19(1)(g) is not breached.
- Everyone pays the same. Since every advocate pays the identical stamp, there is no discrimination under Article 14.
The bench described the fund as a social-welfare arrangement that supports the families of advocates who fall ill or die — a modest, shared contribution rather than a toll on the right to practise. The writ petition was dismissed.
Case reference
Vijay Gopal v. State of Telangana & Others, Telangana High Court, Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda. Reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 166.
What this means for you
The welfare-fund stamp on a vakalat is here to stay: the Court treated it as a valid social-welfare levy, not a restriction on practising law. For advocates and litigants, it is simply part of correctly filing a vakalat, and a missing stamp is a ground for the registry to refuse the filing. We advise on constitutional and writ matters and on challenges to statutory levies and fees.