The Telangana High Court dismissed a plea challenging the levy of Rs. 10,000 fees imposed by Bar Council of Telangana on lawyers for resuming legal practice after earlier suspending practice, as prescribed by Bar Council of India in a 2024 circular.

The court, however, clarified that State Bar Councils, like in the present case, cannot impose any additional fee beyond what is authorized by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The single judge bench of Justice N. Tukaramji, adjudged a plea by a lawyer, who had challenged Bar Council of Telangana's general body resolution [which enhanced the resumption fees payable to state bar council from Rs 5k to Rs 10k] and the BCI rules to the extent they mandated the payment of the resumption fees.

“…The challenge to the resolution dated 06.04.2024 is accordingly rejected to the extent that the demand of Rs.10,000/- corresponds to the fee prescribed by the Bar Council of India under the revised fee schedule. However, respondent No.1[State Bar Council] is not recognised as having any independent authority to impose an additional fee beyond the amount authorised under the applicable statutory and regulatory framework..”, the court noted in the order.

For context, the petitioner-lawyer was enrolled in 1992 and thereupon, he voluntarily suspended his practise in 2002 upon joining employment elsewhere. After retirement from the said employment, the lawyer he sought to resume his practice as an advocate. However, the State Bar Council authorities informed him that he was to pay around Rs 12 k to resume his practise.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the said resumption fee levied by the State Bar Council was without statutory authority, and violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.

Relying on the apex court precedent in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India[2024] , the party in person-lawyer contended that compulsory charges related to the profession shouldn't be exceeding the statutory limits. If a levy is not specifically authorized by the Advocates Act, 1961, or rules framed thereunder, such levy can't stand through an administrative resolution of the State Bar Council, the petitioner added. The lawyer also assailed the enhancement of resumption fees from Rs 5 k to 10k, pointing out the administrative expenditure for processing such resumption applications.

Senior Counsel S. Ashok Anand Kumar, appearing for the Telangana Bar Council, said that the impugned levy was legalised under Sections 6, 28(1), and 28(2)(d) of the Advocates Act, r/w Part VI, Chapter III of the BCI Rules. Since the fee is compensatory and regulatory, which also covers costs for scrutiny, biometric verification, background checks, and maintenance of the State roll, the levy was reasonable, the counsel argued. Rebutting the petitioner's reliance on Gaurav Kumar, the counsel contended that the bar applies only to fresh enrolment under Section 24(1)(f), and not to resumption of practice.

The BCI also refuted the submissions made by the petitioner, and stated that a circular dated July 4, 2024 [effective from August 4,2024] revised the fee schedule under Part VIII of the BCI Rules. As per the new schedule, the total fee for resumption was fixed at Rs14k out of which Rs 10k[enhanced from 5k to 10k] becomes payable to the State Bar Council and Rs 4k to the BCI. BCI is empowered under Section 49(1)(h) of the Act to prescribe such fees.

The court inferred that the power to prescribe fees for matters under the Advocates Act is specifically conferred upon the BCI under Section 49(1)(h), including resumption fees. Also relying on a Kerala High Court judgment in Jinan K.R. v. Bar Council of Kerala, the court iterated that a State Bar Council can't levy a resumption fee exceeding the amount prescribed by the BCI.

The Court further observed that since the petitioner applied for resumption post August 6, 2024, the revised BCI fee schedule was applicable. The earlier fee of Rs 5k too could not be claimed because it was a mandate at an earlier point of time.

“….The material question, therefore, is whether the demand for Rs 10,000 represents the fee prescribed by the Bar Council of India under the revised schedule or an independent levy imposed by respondent No.1[State Bar Council] pursuant to its resolution dated 06.04.2024….Merely characterising a levy as administrative, regulatory or compensatory does not, by itself, establish the requisite legal authority…”, the court noted at the outset.

“…It is clarified that respondent No.1[Bar Council of State] shall not levy any additional fee over and above the amount authorised under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the rules framed thereunder. Any contribution payable towards the Advocates' Welfare Fund, or under any other statutory scheme, shall be levied only by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. Any amount already paid by the petitioner towards such contribution shall be duly credited…”, the court said further.

Therefore, the Court rejected the challenge to the Rs 10K demand to the extent that it corresponded to the fee prescribed by the BCI under the revised Part VIII of the BCI Rules, effective from August 6, 2024.

The state's Bar Council, however, can't levy any additional fee over and above the amount authorized under the Act and rules, the court clarified.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.