ON JUNE 19, 2026, a Division Bench in the Supreme Court passed a significant order in Sarita Tyagi v. Union of India, where it noted as follows:
“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 … During this formative period, many junior advocates remain dependent upon modest stipends paid by their seniors, which are often insufficient to meet even their basic living expenses … 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… It, therefore, 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 and the State Governments.”
Every year, thousands of students graduate from law colleges across India. Few join corporate law firms, others enter companies as in-house counsel and a miniscule few move into academia, policy or research. The large majority of law school graduates choose litigation. With jobs in corporate law, companies and universities predominantly cornered by graduates from affluent law schools and elite private law colleges, litigation is often the default choice for many. Of those who opt for litigation, a small section are able to secure offices with decent salaries and opportunities, which enables them to enter courtrooms, chambers and tribunals with the hope of building a practice, representing clients and in some cases, wanting to use the law for social reform. For the majority however, the opportunities that litigation offers are starkly different. For them the opportunities of growth are long-winded, the conditions of work, poor and the pay, extremely low.
Litigation occupies a unique place in the pyramid of legal career paths. Unlike most other career pathways available to law graduates, it is still organised around a traditional apprenticeship model. A fresh law graduate does not generally enter a workplace with a defined role, predictable remuneration and institutional support. Often the initial years are spent learning under an experienced advocate, observing court craft, understanding procedure, building relationships and slowly developing an independent practice of their own. These opportunities are mediated by caste and class location, and are hard to come to those who are previously unconnected. The scope of growth is also limited for several advocates who work in 'smaller’ offices and continue to remain 'juniors' even after years of practice. A visit to any court reflects the social and class determinants in operation, regulating both access and opportunity.
Of those who opt for litigation, a small section are able to secure offices with decent salaries and opportunities, which enables them to enter courtrooms, chambers and tribunals with the hope of building a practice.
Litigation however is an attractive career choice for many, despite these challenges. Few professions offer the opportunity to stand before a court and argue for a person's liberty, livelihood, dignity and other constitutional rights. Several persons from historically disadvantaged sections including Dalits and Adivasis, enter the profession, inspired by the legal life of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and how he used the law to crystalise the rights of oppressed classes. Litigation is demanding, people facing and often politically consequential. It places lawyers at the intersection of law, power and everyday life. For many, particularly those committed to social justice, there is no comparable alternative.
For most young lawyers, the first few years of practice are marked by precarity and abject financial uncertainty. Junior advocates spend long hours assisting seniors, conducting research, drafting pleadings, appearing in court and managing clients, while earning poorly. Existing studies suggest that a large proportion of advocates with less than two years of experience earn between ₹5,000 and ₹15,000 per month. In district courts and mofussil courts, earnings are often even lower.
The profession has remained less accessible for those from historically marginalized and disadvantaged backgrounds because entry into litigation depends upon one's ability to absorb years of financial instability. It is against this backdrop that the Supreme Court's recent order in Sarita Tyagi is significant, where the Court acknowledged the 'gender-neutral’ monetary issue that has long been treated as an unfortunate but unavoidable feature of the profession.
The Court observed that a young first-generation lawyer does not inherit an office, a library, a stable clientele or a predictable source of income. The lack of institutional support, it noted, risks driving talented lawyers away from litigation altogether, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds who may be unable to sustain years of economic uncertainty. It is important to recall here that previously too this issue has received attention.
In fact, on October 15, 2024, the Bar Council of India (‘BCI’) issued Circular No. BCI:D:5383/2024 recommending a minimum monthly stipend of ₹20,000 in urban areas and ₹15,000 in rural areas for junior advocates. The BCI circular was an attempt to finally put in place a guaranteed minimum level of financial support during the formative years of practice, particularly for junior advocates working under seniors or law firms and closely resembles a minimum professional stipend for young practitioners. However, its compliance has never been enforced. Some states have attempted to address this gap through limited financial assistance schemes for junior advocates. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced support mechanisms of varying quantum, while in Karnataka, the Social Welfare Department provides a monthly stipend of ₹5,000 to eligible advocates from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. The assistance is modest and in practice, its disbursement has been irregular.
The lack of institutional support, the Court noted, risks driving talented lawyers away from litigation altogether, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds who may be unable to sustain years of economic uncertainty.
Coming back to the Supreme Court's recent observations; these are tentative. They do not create any enforceable entitlement. Nevertheless, they are important because they recognise a reality that young lawyers have always known: the ability to remain in litigation is often determined not by merit, hard work or professional ability, but by access to financial support during the formative years of practice.
We must confront this question: If sustaining in litigation increasingly depends upon wealth, family support and social capital, who gets to become a lawyer-advocate in India, who gets to remain one and who gets to progress in this profession?
Women advocates, especially, encounter barriers in ways that are both visible and invisible. The absence of adequate infrastructure within court complexes, which the Supreme Court also acknowledges in Sarita Tyagi, is perhaps the most obvious example. Further, unlike lawyers employed in corporate firms or institutional settings, litigating advocates are not recognised as employees. They therefore remain outside the protective framework of labour legislation that governs maternity benefits, childcare support, health insurance, regulated leave and other workplace protections. Litigation chambers continue to function through informal arrangements where support depends largely on the goodwill of individual seniors rather than any enforceable rights.
The consequences of this are visible in the composition of the profession itself. A national survey conducted by the Supreme Court Bar Association titled ‘Documenting Voices of Women Legal Professionals in India’ in March 2026 found that while India has over twenty lakh advocates, only about three lakh are women. Although the number of women entering the profession has steadily increased over the decades, representation declines sharply at every level of professional advancement. Women remain significantly underrepresented among designated senior advocates, in Bar leadership positions and on the Bench. The same survey also recorded that 42.7 percent of those who sought childcare or caregiving accommodations were denied such support.
The exclusion travels upwards through the legal system. The pathways that lead to designation as Senior Advocate, appointment to High Courts and eventually elevation to the Supreme Court all begin at the stage of legal practice. Those who are unable to survive the early years of litigation are unlikely to remain long enough to occupy positions of influence within the profession.
The underrepresentation visible in the judiciary today is connected to the barriers that exist at the point of entry. At present, only two of the thirty six judges of the Supreme Court are women. Across the High Courts, as of March 2026, women constitute approximately 14 percent of judges. The position in Karnataka reflects a similar pattern. Of the more than fifty designated senior advocates in the State, only five are women. The Karnataka High Court presently has ten women judges as against thirty-eight male judges.
Some of the most socially significant areas of legal practice - constitutional litigation, labour rights, climate justice, disability rights and gender justice - are also among the least financially secure, resulting in many talented young lawyers being compelled to abandon these fields.
SCBA’s survey also found that 76.4 percent of the young women advocates surveyed were either planning or considering a judicial career, owing to its perceived stability and respect. In the month of May last year, the Supreme Court, in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025) mandated a 3-year practice in litigation to appear for the judicial service examination, which again means that the privilege to sustain in the initial years of litigation without minimum financial support will in fact literally determine your access to judicial services.
The same concerns apply to advocates from Dalit, Adivasi and other historically disadvantaged communities. Access to the higher judiciary remains deeply dependent upon visibility within the profession, opportunities for advancement and sustained participation at the Bar. The consequences are eventually reflected in the composition of the judiciary itself. The representation of Scheduled Tribe communities especially has remained abysmally low.
Access to Justice
The Supreme Court's recommendation to establish a Young Lawyers' Professional Assistance Fund offers us an opportunity to think again. Some of the most socially significant areas of legal practice - constitutional litigation, labour rights, climate justice, disability rights and gender justice - are also among the least financially secure, resulting in many talented young lawyers being compelled to abandon these fields despite possessing the skill and commitment necessary to practice them. Access to competent legal representation for everyone, including to those from marginalized communities, is indispensable to the functioning of a constitutional democracy. For this work to happen, it is essential that the profession remains accessible to those willing to undertake it.
Support for young first-generation lawyers, women and lawyers from Dalit, Adivasi and other socially oppressed sections, therefore, is not simply a matter of individual professional welfare. It is tied to the quality of access to justice available to the public. It influences whose experiences find representation within legal institutions and which communities are ultimately able to access effective legal assistance. Whether through stipend schemes, welfare reforms, childcare support, improved infrastructure, public-interest fellowships or legal aid funding, meaningful intervention is both possible and necessary. The legal profession cannot remain representative of the society it serves if entry into it is conditioned by family networks and the ability to withstand years of uncertainty. A profession entrusted with securing justice must first also ensure that justice exists within its own ranks.