MP High Court Directs State Bar Council To Provisionally Register Advocate Questioning Exorbitant Fee To Transfer Enrolment From Delhi

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in an interim order directed the State Bar Council to provisionally register the name of an advocate on its rolls–who had sought transfer of enrolment from Bar Council to Delhi to Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh–without charging any fees for the time being. These directions were passed in a writ petition filed by the petitioner advocate Rohit Pathak, who contended that when he sought to shift his practice from Delhi to Jabalpur and submitted application before Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh for transfer of enrolment, the state bar council demanded an 'exorbitant' amount of ₹15,000 as a condition for accepting the transfer. Issuing notice on Pathak's plea a division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf directed; "In the meantime, the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh is directed to register the name of petitioner in its roll subject to further orders, without charging any fee at this stage". The petitioner, originally enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, wanted to shift his practice to Madhya Pradesh and thus applied for the transfer by submitting an application. It was contended that, though no fee was legally chargeable, both Bar Councils of Delhi and Madhya Pradesh demanded fees which were duly paid. Therefore, on July 18 a certificate with endorsement from the Bar Council of Delhi was submitted to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, but instead of accepting it the latter demanded an 'exorbitant' amount of ₹15,000.The petitioner cited Section 18 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which stated, 'for transfer of name from one State roll to another, the transfer has to be effected without payment of any fee'. Additionally, it was submitted that the Bar Council of India had already passed an order transferring the enrolment of the petitioner from the Bar Council of Delhi to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. Recording the submission of the petitioner, the court issued notice. It noted that since the Bar Council of Delhi has 'no role' in this matter, it did not issue notice to the same. Passing the interim order the court listed the matter on October 7.Case Title: Rohit Pathak v Bar Council of India (WP-35160-2025)For Bar Council of India: Advocate Aditya Veer SinghFor State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh: Advocate Har Sahai PateriyaClick here to read/download Order

MP High Court Directs State Bar Council To Provisionally Register Advocate Questioning Exorbitant Fee To Transfer Enrolment From Delhi

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags