On Monday, the Supreme Court raised serious concerns over the alleged reuse of advocate’s welfare stamps in electronically filed vakalatnamas, with the Registry informing the Court that scanned copies of a single stamp were allegedly being attached across multiple filings. The issue surfaced during the hearing of a plea by the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking a separate welfare fund for lawyers practising before the Apex Court, bringing fresh attention to possible loopholes in the Court’s e-filing mechanism.
The controversy unfolded after Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay, appearing for the Registry, informed the Bench that the existing welfare stamps lacked any identifying feature, making repeated digital use possible in the online filing system. He pointed out that while physical filings earlier required the stamp to be cut and physically attached, the e-filing process had created scope for duplication.
SCBA President Vikas Singh supported the concern and urged the Court to consider electronic stamping, arguing that repeated use of the same welfare stamp amounted to fraud. The hearing also revolved around the SCBA’s broader demand for a dedicated welfare mechanism for Supreme Court advocates, claiming that welfare stamp collections from Supreme Court filings were currently being diverted to the Bar Council of Delhi without corresponding benefits reaching Apex Court practitioners.
The Division Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe treated the issue seriously, particularly after being informed that clients signed vakalatnamas but not the welfare stamps themselves. Justice Narasimha observed, “It’s a huge loss of revenue for the advocates welfare fund. We will call our committee to deal with this.” The Court also granted time to the Bar Council of India to place its policy response on record while continuing to examine the demand for a separate welfare framework for Supreme Court lawyers.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
