Supreme Court Requests Delhi High Court To Expedite Hearing Of Plea Challenging Bar Council Transfer Fee
The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain an Article 32 writ petition challenging the alleged extraorbitant fees charged by Bar Councils for the transfer of the Bar Council registration from one State to another.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi stated that another writ petition raising a similar issue is currently pending before the Delhi High Court. While refusing to entertain the present petition, the bench granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter in the Delhi High Court.
The bench has requested the High Court to expedite the disposal of the pending writ petition.
Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, representing a practising advocate, stated that although a plea was filed before the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court is being approached as the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh Bar Council was also involved..
Referring to a chart, Gupta pointed out that when they had approached the Delhi High Court, they aren't aware that even the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council would be separately charging a fee to allow transfer.
It may be noted that in Gaurav Kumar v UOI(2024), the Supreme Court held that BCI can only charge fees contemplated in the legislation and nothing more or less than that. It had restricted the enrollment fees to Rs. 750. Following this, the Bombay High Court, Madhya Pradesh and other high courts have struck down the hefty transfer fees charged by the respective State Bar Councils.
Referring to Section 18 of the Advocates Act, she added that the legislation doesn't contemplate any fees. But the petitioner was compelled to pay Rs. 18,000 for a transfer from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh.
"We are coming again and again against the Bar Council of India. There is something serious to be seen against the BCI. Why are so many discrepancies being pointed out?" she said.
CJI Kant stated that if the Court entertains this PIL, every such person would come here. He suggested that UP Bar Council can be impleaded in the petition before the Delhi High Court.
"Every day we are entertaining doesn't mean that every action against the BCI should come to the Supreme Court," CJI Kant said.
In view of this, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue the pending writ petition in the Delhi High Court, and to implead Uttar Pradesh Bar Council against whom there arises a fresh cause of action.
"The petitioner may pursue the pending writ petition, in which he may, if so advised, implead the other State Bar Councils against whom he is said to have acquired a fresh cause of action. We also request the Delhi High Court to expedite the final disposal of the above-stated writ petition," the Court ordered.
Case Details: ADITYA KUMAR KANDU Vs BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 682/2026 Diary No. 30820 / 2026