“Bridging the Justice Gap” – Supreme Court’s Affirmation of Advocates’ Pro-Bono Duty & Power to Award Amicus Honorarium
Commentary on Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors., (2025) INSC 200

1. Introduction

The decision in Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors. concerns a 73-year-old litigant pursuing long-pending claims against his former employer. When the Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) reached the Supreme Court, Mr. Sharma appeared in-person, struggling with language barriers and limited means. The Court appointed a young advocate, Mr. Sanchar Anand, as amicus curiae to assist both the Court and the petitioner. Ultimately, the case culminated not in a merits ruling but in a Court-brokered settlement awarding the petitioner ₹20 lakh and, significantly, ₹1 lakh honorarium to the amicus.

Beyond settling an individual employment dispute, the judgment formally articulates two normative principles: (i) an ethical and professional obligation on advocates, particularly juniors, to volunteer pro-bono representation for litigants who cannot afford counsel, and (ii) the Supreme Court’s power to direct a litigant to compensate an appointed amicus curiae, thereby institutionalising recognition of pro-bono service.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The parties accepted the Court’s suggestion of a full and final settlement of ₹20 lakh payable to the petitioner within three weeks.
• The SLP was disposed of without adjudicating the merits once parties agreed to settle.
• The Court directed an additional ₹1 lakh honorarium to the amicus curiae, payable by the respondent-company.
• Extensive obiter dicta highlighted the service-oriented nature of the legal profession, urging young lawyers to volunteer for indigent litigants and promote alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”).
• Pending collateral proceedings between the same parties were ordered to be concluded expeditiously in light of the settlement.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The only precedent expressly cited is State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Association, AIR 1994 SC 1654. That case lauded the “service” ethos of the Bar, tracing the lawyer’s historical role as a community spokesman rather than a transactional agent. The present Court uses it as a springboard to:

• Re-emphasise that advocacy is fundamentally a public service, even in an era of commercialised practice.
• Illustrate continuity between historic ideals and contemporary expectations of pro-bono work.

Although not named, the ruling implicitly draws on constitutional provisions and prior jurisprudence:

• Article 39-A of the Constitution – mandates free legal aid and equal access to justice.
• Article 142 – empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for “complete justice”, the basis for directing a monetary settlement and amicus honorarium.
• Hussainara Khatoon line of cases (1979–80) – foundational for free legal aid.
• Lok Adalat / ADR precedents such as Afcons Infrastructure v. Cherian Varkey (2010) emphasising settlement culture.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The reasoning unfolds on two axes:

1. Equitable Settlement over Adversarial Determination
   Considering the petitioner’s age, health, and the prolonged litigation, the Court found that immediate monetary relief outweighed the speculative benefit of a merits decision. Invoking its parens patriae-like duty and powers under Article 142, the Court fixed an amount “just and appropriate” – notably higher than the respondents’ final offer (₹15 lakh) and lower than the petitioner’s claim (~₹1 crore) – thereby balancing interests.
2. Re-affirmation of Advocates’ Duties
   Using robust obiter, the Court delineated:
   • An expectation that members of the Bar actively look for opportunities to assist unrepresented or indigent litigants.
   • The notion that advocacy should serve as a “bridge of communication and peace” rather than a “soldier’s” adversarial stance.
   • The legitimation of awarding an honorarium to an amicus curiae drawn from parties, signalling that pro-bono work deserves institutional recognition even if rendered selflessly.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation and Legal Practice

• Standard-Setting for Pro-Bono Culture – The judgment speaks directly to young lawyers, likely to be quoted in bar-council orientations, judicial conferences, and CLE programmes to revitalise Article 39-A’s spirit.
• Amicus Honorarium Jurisprudence – While earlier instances of compensating amicus exist, this ruling expressly directs payment by a private party whose counsel benefitted from the Court’s intervention. It may serve as authority for future benches to fix reasonable honoraria, balancing voluntarism with fair recompense.
• Promotion of Court-Brokered Settlements – Reinforces the Court’s willingness to nudge parties, even at SLP stage, toward pragmatic resolution. It could embolden lower courts to proactively deploy mediation or in-court settlements, particularly where litigants are elderly or impecunious.
• Access-to-Justice Narrative – Counters the perception that the Supreme Court is accessible only to the affluent. The decision will likely inform empirical studies and policy dialogues on reducing litigation costs.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• SLP (Special Leave Petition) – A discretionary appeal mechanism under Article 136 allowing the Supreme Court to hear matters from any court/tribunal in India.
• Amicus Curiae – Literally “friend of the court”; an advocate appointed to assist the Court (and sometimes an unrepresented party) in the interest of justice.
• Article 142 Powers – Constitutional provision enabling the Supreme Court to fashion any order necessary to do “complete justice”, even if no specific statute provides for such an order.
• Obiter Dicta – Judicial observations not strictly necessary for the decision on facts, but persuasive and indicative of legal policy.
• Honorarium vs. Costs – An honorarium is a token payment recognising the services of an amicus; it is distinct from “costs”, which are compensatory payments ordinarily awarded to a successful litigant.

5. Conclusion

Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal is less about the quantum of settlement and more about the Court’s normative messaging: advocacy is a public service, and access to justice should not be price-tagged. By explicitly exhorting young lawyers to volunteer and by institutionalising the practice of remunerating amicus curiae, the Supreme Court has planted a contemporary precedent that intersects professional ethics, constitutional mandates, and ADR philosophy. The ruling promises to influence bar culture, inspire policy conversations on legal aid, and embolden courts to creatively harness Article 142 for real-world justice.

In the broader canvas of Indian jurisprudence, the judgment re-energises Article 39-A’s egalitarian vision and cautions against excessive commercialisation of the profession. For practitioners, scholars, and litigants alike, its key takeaway is clear: the courtroom is not merely a battleground of warring interests but a forum where lawyers, litigants, and judges collaboratively bridge the justice gap.