A writ petition was registered by Gaurav Kumar against the Union Government, Bar Council of India, and State Bar Councils for imposing extravagant enrolment fees.
The concerned matter was attended by a full bench consisting of Dr. DY Chandrachud, C.J., P.S. Narasimha, and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. declared the charged fee as arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal.
In the case, the petitioner who appeared as party-in-person pleaded that the Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act of 1961 mentions an enrolment fee payable in respect to being admitted as an Advocate under state roll:”….in respect of the enrolment, an enrolment fee payable to the State Bar Council of six hundred rupees and the Bar Council of India, one hundred and fifty rupees by way of a bank draft drawn in favour of that Council. Provided that where such person is a member of the Schedule Castes or the Schedule Tribes and produces a certificate to that effect from such authority as may be prescribed, the enrolment fee payable by him to the State Bar Council shall be one hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of India, twenty-five rupees.”
Furthermore, he alleged that contrary to this, the State Bar Councils impose immoderate fees which is distinct for different States i.e. functioning in defiance of the Act.
He defended his above-mentioned pleadings by mentioning exorbitant figures of enrolment fees charged by different State Bar Councils. He told that in Odisha, it is Rs 42,100; in Gujarat, it is Rs.25,000; in Uttarakhand, it is Rs 23,650; in Jharkhand, it is Rs 21,460; in Kerala, it is Rs.20,000.
Likewise, he also submitted that different State Bar Councils demand additional payment for circulation fees if anyone wishes to get their enrolment done within 24 hours. He also put forward that levying of any additional charges by State Bar Council towards circulation fees is not supported even by BCI.
He also mentioned that even BCI charges a fee of Rs. 2000 for name transfer from one State roll to another, though there is no such provision for this in place. Such a practice is arbitrary and unlawful.
The honourable Court held the matter dealt with in the respective case titled Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 352/2023 as a ‘significant issue’. The court also put out a notice to the Union Government, Bar Council of India, and State Bar Councils accordingly in consideration of the pleadings of the petitioner.
Written by Sonakshi Misra, 2nd year (4th semester) B.A.LL.B. Hons. student at Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur.
0 Comments