Introduction:
In a significant development impacting the legal fraternity across India, the Supreme Court has once again asserted that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and all State Bar Councils are prohibited from collecting any enrolment fee beyond the statutory limits prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The ruling came during the hearing of a contempt petition filed by petitioner-in-person K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu against the Karnataka State Bar Council, represented by Ramesh S. Naik (FDA), alleging continued collection of exorbitant fees despite the Court’s earlier decision in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024). This earlier judgment had clearly stated that enrolment fees must not exceed ₹750 for general category advocates and ₹125 for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe advocates. The petitioner contended that the Karnataka State Bar Council had been charging between ₹6,800 and ₹25,000 in addition to the statutory fees, labeling them as “optional” fees. A bench comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan heard the matter, which highlighted systemic issues of fee compliance, the meaning of “optional” in the enrolment context, and the broader implications for accessibility to the legal profession.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu, argued that the conduct of the Karnataka State Bar Council amounted to a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s binding directions in the 2024 judgment. He stated that despite clear judicial orders, the Council continued to levy additional amounts that were significantly higher than the prescribed statutory caps. He submitted that the extra sums—₹6,800 and ₹25,000 in different categories—were presented as “optional” contributions. However, in practice, aspirants felt compelled to pay them to avoid possible disadvantages during enrolment or to ensure smoother processing of their applications. The petitioner further stressed that the statutory provisions under Section 24 were designed to maintain equality of access to the profession by keeping enrolment costs low and affordable for all categories of aspirants. By imposing exorbitant fees under various labels, the State Bar Councils undermined this legislative intent and created financial barriers, particularly for candidates from marginalized and economically weaker backgrounds. He pointed out that Karnataka was not the only violator—other councils like Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir were also charging beyond permissible limits, sometimes under the guise of “Advocates Welfare Fund” or other welfare-related heads. He urged the Court to issue strict compliance directions and take contempt action against councils violating the statutory framework.
Arguments of the Respondents:
On behalf of the Bar Council of India, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra submitted an affidavit dated August 4, acknowledging that in light of the 2024 judgment, the BCI had already issued a detailed communication to all State Bar Councils directing them to adhere strictly to statutory fee limits. The affidavit explained that the BCI had no independent authority to alter the statutory maxima prescribed under Section 24 and that these limits must be observed without exception. Mishra stated that when it came to light that the Karnataka State Bar Council was charging excessive amounts, the BCI immediately sent out a directive to all State Bar Councils seeking a detailed report on the enrolment fees being collected. According to the affidavit, most State Bar Councils confirmed they were in compliance with the statutory mandate. However, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, and Jammu & Kashmir were identified as exceptions. Himachal Pradesh was found to be collecting an Advocates Welfare Fund fee, while Jammu & Kashmir was charging ₹900 for general category and ₹450 for SC/ST—both amounts exceeding the statutory ceiling. The BCI argued that it had done its part to enforce compliance and that any continuing violation by State Bar Councils was a matter for the Court to address through appropriate directions.
Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court bench was categorical in its stance that the concept of an “optional” fee was alien to the statutory scheme of the Advocates Act. Justice Pardiwala observed that an optional fee, even if not mandatory on paper, could in reality function as a coercive levy if aspirants felt pressured to pay it. The Court reiterated its earlier ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024), which held that the enrolment fee could not exceed ₹750 for general category advocates and ₹125 for SC/ST advocates. The Bench made it explicit that no Bar Council—whether at the state level or the national level—was authorized to demand or collect any additional fee under any label, whether “optional,” “welfare fund,” or otherwise, if it went beyond the statutory limit. It noted that while the BCI had issued compliance advisories, actual enforcement was critical to uphold the law’s intent. The Court underscored that the statutory caps were put in place to ensure that entering the legal profession remained affordable and accessible to all, thus fulfilling the constitutional commitment to equality and access to justice.
Court’s Decision:
Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court issued a clear and binding directive that any additional fee collection by any State Bar Council, whether termed optional or otherwise, must cease immediately. “We make it clear that there is nothing like optional,” the Court said, “No State Bar Council(s) or Bar Council of India shall collect any fees of any amount as optional. They shall strictly collect fees in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the main judgment.” The Bench emphasized that if the Karnataka State Bar Council or any other council was still collecting such fees, it must be stopped without delay. The Court further indicated that any future violations could invite contempt proceedings. In closing, the Court reaffirmed that statutory limits are binding and non-negotiable, and compliance must be total and uniform across all states. It placed the onus on the BCI to ensure sustained monitoring and compliance by State Bar Councils, leaving no scope for ambiguity or selective adherence.