SC Flags Inadequate Court Facilities For Women Lawyers And Flags Financial Hardship And Endorses Proposal For Young Lawyers Professional Assistance Fund
It is most heartening and most rejuvenating to learn that none other than the Supreme Court itself for the first time at least to the best of my knowledge in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sarika Tyagi & Ors vs Union of India & Ors in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 770/2026 that was pronounced just recently on 19 June 2026 has supported the proposed creation of a “Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund” to provide financial assistance to advocates during the early stages of litigation practice. It is worth paying singular attention that the Division Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr Suryakant and Hon’ble Ms Justice V Mohana minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably that economic insecurity can force capable young lawyers, particularly first-generation practitioners and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to leave the profession despite their aptitude and interest in advocacy. To put it differently, this is the prime reason that best talent is either leaving judiciary or not even entering judiciary to save themselves from years of dedicated efforts without getting anything in return which means worst than even a police constable! This definitely cannot be left unaddressed any longer now!
It must be asked: Why seniors don’t pay their juniors adequately when they give in their best and help in winning the case? This must definitely change now because every person has financial needs to survive in society and not everyone come from rich backgrounds who can cushion financial loss for decades without getting depressed and without feeling compelled to switch to some other field or shift to corporate side! Such rotten state of affairs for young talent in judiciary is never addressed and it merits a complete surgery and a band-aid solution just won’t work!
It must also be asked: Why Bar Council of India never holds senior accountable for paying juniors? Why Bar Council of India only remains hell bent to get more and more proof from junior lawyers and even started All India Bar Exams (AIBE) to get into profession and then verification after every five years but why no homework done ever on providing them financial security especially young graduates? This is exactly spot on what this leading case has boldly tried to address which has to be most strongly applauded as no one ever tries to hold senior advocates responsible for the most messy state of affairs because of their not paying juniors or paying very miserly which is a pathetic state of affairs that is an unpalatable truth from which we cannot just run away!
Similarly, the Apex Court has acknowledged that access to clean washrooms, privacy, safety and suitable working spaces was not merely a matter of convenience. It was also candidly conceded by the top court that the absence of such facilities could impede the professional participation of women advocates and discourage them from continuing in litigation. This too needs to be addressed at the earliest on a war footing!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Division Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr Suryakant and Hon’ble Ms Justice V Mohana sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The instant Writ Petition has been instituted in public interest by a group of women advocates practising before various courts across the country. The issues raised in these proceedings touch upon larger questions concerning the accessibility, inclusiveness, and long-term sustainability of women lawyers in the legal profession.”
As we see, the Apex Court points out in para 2 that, “The Petitioners have, in the first instance, drawn attention to the absence of Reason: majority of the High Courts, District Courts, Taluka Courts, Revenue Courts, Tribunals, and Commissions across the country. They contend that the lack of such infrastructure adversely affects the ability of women advocates to discharge their professional responsibilities.”
As things stands, the top court lays bare in para 3 that, “The Petitioners have further highlighted the financial challenges faced by young lawyers during the formative years of practice and have suggested the creation of a ‘Young Advocates Corpus Fund’ under the aegis of the respective State Bar Councils to provide fixed monthly stipends to fresh entrants to the profession. Both concerns converge upon the common objective of ensuring that the legal profession remains accessible to all and that talented individuals are neither discouraged from entering it nor are they compelled to leave it for want of support.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “The Petitioners have placed on record the results of a survey undertaken by them through a structured questionnaire titled, “Form for Basic Provisions and Amenities”. The survey was circulated amongst women advocates practising across different parts of the country and was supplemented by physical visits to several Court Complexes. According to the material placed before us, information was collected from numerous District and Taluka Courts as well as various High Courts. The data so collected reveals that in the majority of the Court Complexes, either no dedicated Ladies’ Bar Room exists or the facilities provided therein are wholly inadequate, lacking essentials such as sufficient seating arrangements, clean washrooms, changing spaces, nursing facilities, and other amenities necessary for the effective discharge of professional responsibilities by women members of the Bar.”
On a pragmatic note, the Bench points out in para 5 that, “It appears to us that the concern raised by the Petitioners cannot be brushed aside as a matter of mere convenience. The legal profession has witnessed a steady and encouraging increase in the participation of women over the last few decades. However, the mere opening of doors alone cannot be a sufficient cause for celebration. In order for their participation to be made meaningful, it must be accompanied by the creation of conditions that enable women advocates to discharge their professional responsibilities effectively, safely, and on equal terms. The availability of adequately equipped spaces for women professionals within Court Complexes is one such indispensable condition.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “We may hasten to add that a Court Complex may simply appear to be a designated venue where legal proceedings are conducted, but those who live their lives in service of the law know it to be much more. It functions as a workplace where substantial portions of their professional lives are spent and, not infrequently, assumes the character of a second home. Most of the advocates spend long hours preparing matters, interacting with clients, consulting colleagues, and discharging their duties within these premises. They rely on such common amenities because many advocates cannot afford to maintain their own offices, appoint staff, and purchase the required digital and physical resources. In fact, the absence of a designated area where such basic facilities are made available to women, disproportionately impacts them and may, in certain cases, discourage them from continuing practice.”
Most remarkably, the Bench underscores in para 7 holding explicitly that, “The provision of such essential facilities prima facie bears a direct nexus with the fundamental guarantee of life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The expression “life” under Article 21 has consistently received an expansive interpretation from this Court and has been understood to encompass those conditions which enable an individual to live and work with dignity. When women advocates are required to spend substantial portions of their day within court premises, the availability of basic infrastructure necessary for their comfort, privacy, safety, and professional functioning assumes utmost significance. The issue, therefore, transcends the realm of administrative convenience and touches upon values that lie at the heart of the constitutional guarantee of dignity and equal participation in public life.”
Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 8 that, “The second issue raised herein is gender-neutral and concerns financial support for young advocates. It seems to us that this issue merits equally serious consideration. This subject has engaged the attention of the legal fraternity for decades, for the practice of litigation is marked by a particularly steep learning curve. A young first-generation lawyer entering the Bar does not immediately inherit an office, a library, a stable clientele, or a predictable source of income. The initial years are devoted largely to observing court proceedings, assisting seniors, studying case files, understanding procedural intricacies, and gradually acquiring the skills of advocacy and courtroom craft. During this formative period, many junior advocates remain dependent upon modest stipends paid by their seniors or in some places, by the local Bar Associations, which are often insufficient to meet even their basic living expenses. The absence of a steady stream of clients and the limited remuneration available during these years tends to create extreme financial hardship.”
Most forthrightly and most alarmingly, the Bench lays bare in para 9 propounding that, “It is this period of turmoil that often compels capable and promising young lawyers to abandon practice at the Bar altogether. We apprehend that such attrition may produce a form of professional “brain drain”, diminishing the ability of the Bar to attract and retain the young and meritorious. It comes as no surprise that the challenge is particularly acute for first-generation lawyers and those belonging to economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds, who may be under immediate obligations, upon completion of their professional education, to assume charge as their family’s primary breadwinner. Faced with these pressures, many young lawyers are constrained to pursue alternative careers offering greater financial stability from the get-go, notwithstanding their genuine interest and potential in the field of litigation.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 10 that, “It is often said that the rewards of practice accrue with time and perseverance, and that young advocates must remain steadfast through the initial years of struggle. While this is largely true, it presupposes the existence of a financial and social support network that enables a young lawyer to endure that period of uncertainty. Not every aspiring advocate enjoys such support and for many, the decision whether or not to continue in litigation is influenced much more by economic considerations than merit or dedication.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “It, thus, seems to us that a Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund must be created and should be established under the exclusive control of the jurisdictional High Courts or an autonomous body constituted by the Union of India in consultation with the State Governments. A framework of such nature will inspire greater confidence amongst prospective donors and contributors to the Fund.”
Equally significant is that the Bench while continuing in the same vein suggests in para 12 holding that, “As regards the source of funding, all the stakeholders ought to consider the desirability of enacting a suitable law providing for a structured mechanism of donation and contribution by the successful senior advocates and other practicing lawyers with adequate professional experience in the country. In addition, the Union of India and the States ought to contribute a part of the court fee collected by the Judiciary towards that Fund. Similarly, the Courts can also divert a substantial part of the costs imposed in judicial proceedings as a contribution to that Fund.”
Do also note, the Bench notes in para 13 that, “Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has also given some invaluable suggestions for contribution towards the Fund, and a note prepared to this effect is taken on record.”
Most commendably, the Bench expounds in para 14 that, “To operationalize and popularize donations from successful lawyers and others who are directly concerned with the continued improvement of the legal fraternity, the proposed law may provide suitable incentives such as tax exemptions, national awards or other honours to the donee lawyers, etc. The proposed Fund must be utilized to provide a reasonable monthly stipend- cum-honorarium to such young advocates, who are first-generation lawyers or those from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds, during the formative years of their professional careers. The stipend-cum- honorarium can be made available during the formative years of their professional careers. Simultaneously, such beneficiaries should be attached to experienced members of the Bar as associates to compulsorily render their professional services in lieu of payment of a stipend.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 15 that, “The quantum of financial assistance so granted ought to be sufficient to ensure basic sustenance for the initial 3 years of practice. At the same time, such financial assistance may be proportionately reduced over time, finally coming to an end after 7 years of practice. This is likely to coincide with the young lawyer eventually developing self-sufficiency and establishing an independent practice.”
In addition, the Bench goes on to further suggest in para 16 that, “It may also be worthwhile to examine the mechanism by which advocates, who have benefited from such assistance early on in their careers, are required to contribute back to the Fund in a phased manner through monthly installments. Such a model would facilitate the creation of a self- sustaining corpus capable of supporting successive generations of young lawyers.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 17 noting that, “We have consciously made these tentative and illustrative observations in this order to enable all the stakeholders to give due consideration to the issues raised while submitting their proposals before this Court on the next date of hearing. It goes without saying that the proposal suggested above is not intended to limit the range of alternatives that may be considered by the stakeholders.”
Most rationally, the Bench directs and holds in para 18 that, “Having regard to the significance of the issues raised and the wider ramifications they will have for the legal profession, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to all the Respondents, returnable on 17.07.2026.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 19 that, “We request the Ld. Attorney General for the Union of India and the Ld. Advocate Generals for all the States and Standing Counsel for the Union Territories to remain present and render their assistance in the matter.”
In conclusion, this magnanimous, marvellous, magnificent and meticulous judgment by the Apex Court very rightly flags inadequate court facilities for woman lawyers which must definitely be addressed without any more further delay as it brooks no more delay any longer now! It also very rightly flags financial hardships which advocates especially who are first generation lawyers and from not so strong financial background come have to face head on from their initial days itself in this profession. What all has been suggested needs to be tried on a trial basis and if successful can be retained for a longer time! One hardly ever gets to read such most enlightening judgment which dwells spot on in detail on the huge problems faced by those in legal profession especially first generation young lawyers and women! This most commendable judgment needs to be shared and circulated widely!
Author Bio
