Overview The Supreme Court, through a bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe , has issued notice on a writ petition filed by the SCBA . The petition seeks a separate welfare fund for advocates practising before the apex court, arguing that the existing statutory framework creates a vacuum and violates constitutional guarantees. Key Developments Notice issued to the Supreme Court’s administrative side, the Union of India, the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Delhi. SCBA President Vikas Singh contends that the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001 references the Supreme Court but directs proceeds to the Delhi Bar Council, leaving SCBA out. The petition proposes insertion of a new Rule 15A in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 to mandate a ₹500 (or court‑determined) welfare stamp on every vakalatnama filed. Proposed fund to be managed by a high‑powered committee under the aegis of the Chief Justice of India or a nominee judge, together with SCBA office‑bearers. Petition invokes Article 14 , Article 21 and Article 19(1)(g) as being infringed. Important Facts Section 27 of the 2001 Act mandates affixing welfare stamp on vakalatnamas filed before all courts, including the Supreme Court. Currently, proceeds from Supreme Court stamps are credited to State Bar Council welfare funds, not to a dedicated SCBA corpus. The petition seeks a declaration that the reference to the Supreme Court in Section 27(1)(b) and related provisions is unconstitutional. It also seeks a direction for the Bar Council of Delhi to deposit stamp proceeds into a separate interest‑bearing account under Supreme Court Registry supervision. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon several GS2 (Polity) themes: the functioning of statutory bodies, the role of the judiciary in policy‑making, and the constitutional guarantee of equality and social security for a professional class. Understanding the interplay between the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act and the Supreme Court Rules illustrates how legislative gaps can affect rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21. The issue also reflects broader debates on welfare architecture for professionals, a topic that may arise in ethics (GS4) and governance questions. Way Forward Pending the petition, the SCBA has asked the Bar Council of Delhi to create a separate, transparent account for stamp proceeds. If the Court directs amendment of the Supreme Court Rules, a dedicated welfare stamp regime could provide a reliable safety net for apex‑court advocates during medical emergencies, disability or other hardships. The decision will set a precedent for creating profession‑specific welfare mechanisms, potentially influencing reforms suggested in Law Commission Report No. 266. For UPSC aspirants, tracking this development offers insight into how statutory interpretation, judicial activism, and constitutional rights converge to shape professional welfare policies in India.