Karnataka High Court Directs State Bar Council To Refund Excess Enrolment Fee Collected From Advocate; Says It Cannot Collect Fee Contrary To Law

The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to refund the excess enrollment fee collected contrary to the statutory enrollment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.For Context: The prescribed statutory fee is ₹750; the Karnataka State Bar Council has been collecting optional fees of ₹6800. The petitioner Advocate Ravichandragouda R Patil was enrolled as an advocate in the month of October 2024. It was his case that, beyond the prescribed statutory fee of ₹750, the Karnataka State Bar Council has been collecting optional fees of ₹6800. He relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of GAURAV KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, (2024 INSC 558) wherein it was held that the charging of enrolment fees, in excess of the statutory stipulation, is impermissible in law.During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the State Bar Council submitted that the fee was collected prior to the order passed by the Apex Court in GAURAV KUMAR (supra) and KLJA KIRAN BABU (supra). Therefore, if the account details of the petitioner is furnished, the fee that is in excess would be refunded, and if a representation to that effect be submitted to the Bar Council, action would be taken in accordance with law as submitted hereinabove. Following whic,h the bench said “The petitioner in-person shall now submit a representation to the Bar Council within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. In the event the representation is submitted by the petitioner within two weeks, the respondent No.1-Karnataka State Bar Council shall act upon the same, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order passed by the Apex Court and pass necessary orders, directing granting in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner.” It added “It is needless to observe that respondent No.1 – Karnataka State Bar Council cannot and will not collect any fee contrary to law.” Appearance: RAVICHANDRAGOUDA R. PATIL, PARTY-IN-PERSONAdvocate Archana Magdum FOR R1. Advocate Rajashekahar Burji For R2Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 378Case Title: RAVICHANDRAGOUDA R. PATIL AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 105477 OF 2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Karnataka High Court Directs State Bar Council To Refund Excess Enrolment Fee Collected From Advocate; Says It Cannot Collect Fee Contrary To Law

Mustafa Plumber

Tags