Supreme Court Holds That Bar Councils Can't Demand More Fees Than Prescribed U/s. 24 Of Advocates Act, Judgment To Be Prospective

The Supreme Court, today, has pronounced judgment in the petitions alleging exorbitant enrollment fees charged by various State Bar Councils and observed that the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils cannot demand payment of enrollment fees more than prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. 

The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra ordered, "The SBCs (State Bar Councils), being delegated authorities do not have any legislative power to prescribe enrollment fees contrary to the statutory stipulation. Section 24 of the Advocates Act is a fiscal regulatory provision and has to be construed strictly. Parliament has prescribed the enrollment fees and the exercise of its sovereign legislative powers, the State Bar Councils in the Bar Council of India being delegates of Parliament cannot alter or modify the fiscal policy laid down by the Parliament...The result of the decision would entitle the advocates who have paid the excess enrollment fees to a refund from the SBCs...Therefore, we declare that this judgment will have a prospective effect. Resultantly, the SBCs are not required to refund the excess enrollment fees."

The Court observed, "At the time of enrollment, candidates have little agency to pay the fees imposed by the State Bar Councils to get enrolled. Non-payment of the fees means that a candidate cannot get enrolled in the State Roll. Thus all the miscellaneous fees collected from a candidate at the time of enrollment essentially serves a precondition to the process of enrollment...The SBCs and BCI cannot demand payment of fees as a precondition to enrollment. Our dignity is crucial to substantive equality. The dignity of an individual encompasses the right of the individual to develop their potential to the fullest. The right to pursue a professional choice and earn."

Section 24 of the Advocate Act deals with the persons who may be adopted as Advocates on a State roll. It states that the persons who may be adopted as advocates on a State roll. Section 24 specifies the qualifications of a person entitled to be enrolled on the Bar. The section states that subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made there under, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he fulfils the conditions mentioned therein.

The Court reserved the judgment on April 22, 2024.  The submission of the Petitioners was that the enrollment fees are in violation of Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act 1961 and that the Bar Council of India must step in to ensure that exorbitant enrollment fees are not charged. The petitioner alleged that the enrollment fees in Odisha is Rs 42,100, in Gujarat Rs 25,000, in Uttarakhand Rs 23,650, in Jharkhand Rs 21,460 and in Kerala Rs 20,050. The petitioner submitted that this effectively denies the facility of enrollment to young aspiring lawyers who do not have resources.

Observing that numerous young lawyers may face financial constraints preventing their enrollment in State Bar Councils due to excessively high enrollment fees, the Supreme Court had previously orally remarked that the State Bar Councils ought to levy only the amount statutorily permitted.

The Supreme Court had directed all the State Bar Councils to file their reply to the Public Interest Litigation filed challenging the 'exorbitant' enrollment fee being charged by the State Bar Councils. The Court asked the State Bar Councils to specify in their Counter-Affidavit how much amount by the way of the enrollment fee is being collected every year.

In July 2023, the Supreme Court had transferred to itself petitions pending in various High Courts on the same issue. The Kerala High Court in an interim order had directed the Bar Council of Kerala to collect only ₹750 towards enrollment fees from law graduates and aspirants, interested in getting enrolled. The present directions were passed to avoid individual cases by the aspirants in future.

Cause Title: Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No.352/2023)

Click here to read/download Judgment