Exorbitant Enrolment Fees Charged By State Bar Councils Violate Of Right To Profession, Dignity And Equality: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in a significant ruling today held that exorbitant enrollment fees charged by the State Bar Councils (SBCs) violate an aspiring lawyer's right to choose a profession and dignity. Compelling lawyers from marginalised sections to pay hefty enrollment fees strikes at the heart of principles of equality. The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs.750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs.125 for advocates belonging to SC/ST categories.The Court observed the quintessential link between the right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) and how it impacts the other fundamental rights- the right to dignity under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14. It stressed how having the ease of choosing one's profession and earning a livelihood out of it ensured the individual's dignity and equal standing in society. "Dignity is crucial for substantive equality. The dignity of an individual encompasses the right of an develop their potential to the fullest. The right to pursue a profession is one's choice and earning, the right to livelihood is integral to the dignity of an individual. Charging exorbitant enrolment fees and miscellaneous fees as a precondition for enrolment creates a barrier into the entry of the legal profession." The Court found that high enrolment fees create barriers to entering the legal profession, particularly for those from marginalized and economically weaker sections of society."The levy of exorbitant fees as a pre-condition to enrolment serves to denigrate the dignity of those who face social and economic barriers in the advancement of their legal careers. This effectively perpetuates systemic discrimination against persons from marginalized and economically weaker sections by undermining their equal participation in the legal profession. Therefore, the current enrolment fee structure charged by the SBCs is contrary to the principle of substantive equality." Exorbitant Enrolment Creates Economic Barriers; Manifestly Arbitrary Under Article 14: Bench Holds Bar Councils Responsible For An 'Inclusive Bar' The Court emphasized how the excessive enrollment fees set by the SBCs were violative of Article 14 as it created economic barriers for lawyers belonging to the marginalised sections who want to enter the legal profession by enlisting at the State rolls. The SBCs have quoted the enrollment fee to be beyond the prescribed limits under S. 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act making it manifestly arbitrary. "The SBCs at the time of enrolment charge fees in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) and the legislative policy of the Advocates Act. Therefore, the excess enrolment fees charged by the SBCs are manifestly arbitrary. Further, the effect of charging exorbitant enrolment fees as a pre-condition for enrolment has created entry barriers, especially for people from marginalized and economically weaker sections, to enter into the legal profession. Thus, the current enrolment fee structure is manifestly arbitrary because it denies substantive equality." The Advocates Act of 1961 under S. 24(1)(f) prescribes the enrollment fee payable to the State Bar Council as Rs. 600/- and Rs 150/- towards the Bar Council of India for advocates belonging to the general category. For advocates belonging to SC/ST categories, the amounts are Rs.100 and Rs.25 respectively. A detailed chart on the state-wise fee chargeable by different bar councils can be accessed here. In some States, the enrolment fee goes to the extent of Rs.40,000.The Court highlighted how it is the responsibility of Bar Councils to ensure greater inclusivity of lawyers from diverse sections of society. It also interpreted the purpose of the Advocates Act to promote inclusivity of the bar which cannot be taken away by implementing arbitrary enrollment fee measures. "The purpose of the Advocates Act of creating an inclusive Bar cannot be defeated by having exclusionary conditions which seek to create social and economic barriers. The Bar Councils have a responsibility in the public interest to ensure greater representation of persons from marginalized communities in the legal profession." In holding so the bench relied on the decision of the Top Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, where it was held that ensuring equality in outcomes by different forms of affirmative action contributes to the larger aim of substantive equality. Reference was also made to the decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State of Karnataka. In the said case, the Court established the principles for challenging delegated legislation: (a)Test of arbitrary action for executive actions doesn't necessarily apply to delegated legislation; (b) Delegated legislation can only be struck down if manifestly arbitrary; (c) Manifest arbitrariness occurs when not in conformity with the statute; (d) Delegated legislation is also manifestly arbitrary if it offends...

Exorbitant Enrolment Fees Charged By State Bar Councils Violate Of Right To Profession, Dignity And Equality: Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Exorbitant Enrolment Fees Charged By State Bar Councils Violate Of Right To Profession, Dignity And Equality: Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers