Are Bar Councils Following Judgment On Enrollment Fee Cap? Supreme Court Seeks BCI Chairperson's Response

The Supreme Court on July 15 passed an order seeking the presence of the Chairman of the Bar Council of India and Senior Advocate, Manan Mishra, to assist the Court on whether the directions issued by the Court in its July 30, 2024, order directing State Bar Councils to not charge extraorbitant fees for enrollment have been complied with or not. In Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the Bar Councils cannot charge enrollment fees beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Therefore, it stated that as stipulated in Section 24, the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs.750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs.125 for advocates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories.The present case is a contempt petition moved by petitioner-in-person K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu, who has argued that the Bar Councils are in contempt of the 2024 judgment as they have failed to comply with the directions issued. Before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, the petitioner appeared in person. When he was asked about his locus as to how he is aggrieved by the non-compliance, he responded that any person can move the contempt petition. Without further indulging in the debate, the bench decided not to issue notice in this contempt petition. However, it passed an order asking Mishra to be present in the court on August 8 and explained whether there has been compliance with the directions or not. The court ordered: "For the present, we are not inclined to issue notice, however, we would like to know from the Bar Council of India whether the directions issued in the main judgment i.e. para 109 are being complied with in their letter and spirit or not. We request Mr. Manan Mishra, the learned counsel, who also happens to be the Chairman of the Bar Council of India to appear in this matter and assist us."The directions referred to in para 109 of the 2024 judgment are: "a. The SBCs cannot charge "enrolment fees" beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands; b. Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the fiscal pre-conditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls. The SBCs and the BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a pre-condition to enrolment;c. The decision of the SBCs to charge fees and charges at the time of enrolment in excess of the legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; andd. This decision will have prospective effect. The SBCs are not required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected before the date of this judgment."In January, this year, the BCI moved an application in the 2024 judgment seeking to enhance the enrollment fees to Rs 25,000.Case Details: K. L. J. A. KIRAN BABU v KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY RAMESH S NAIK (FDA)|Diary No. 16629-2025 PIL-WClick Here To Read Order

Are Bar Councils Following Judgment On Enrollment Fee Cap? Supreme Court Seeks BCI Chairperson's Response

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags