Introduction:
In the case of P.S. Vijayakumaran v. Union of India and Ors. (WP(C) 32947/2025), the Kerala High Court recently intervened in a matter concerning the enrollment of advocates and the legality of exorbitant fees charged by the Bar Council of Kerala. The writ petition was filed by a retired government employee, P.S. Vijayakumaran, who had completed his LL.B. degree through evening classes after his retirement. His application for enrollment as an advocate was denied by the Bar Council solely because his degree was obtained through evening classes. Further, the petitioner also challenged the imposition of a steep enrollment fee of ₹60,400/-, which was being collected from retired employees, far exceeding the statutory enrollment fee of ₹750/- under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The case came before Justice Easwaran S, who admitted the petition and passed an interim order directing the Bar Council of Kerala to accept the petitioner’s application for enrollment and refrain from insisting on optional fees that the Supreme Court had already disallowed in earlier judgments. The Court’s interim intervention has raised important questions about access to the legal profession, the rights of retired employees to pursue advocacy, and the legitimacy of additional fees imposed by State Bar Councils.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s counsel presented two major grounds for relief. First, it was argued that the denial of enrollment merely because the petitioner obtained his LL.B. degree through evening classes was arbitrary, discriminatory, and legally untenable. The petitioner had pursued legal education through a recognized university, fulfilling all academic requirements of the course. The Advocates Act, 1961, does not impose any restriction regarding the mode of study—whether evening, morning, or regular classes—as long as the degree is duly recognized by the Bar Council of India (BCI). Therefore, the refusal to entertain the petitioner’s application violated his statutory right to enroll and practice law under Section 24 of the Advocates Act.
Secondly, the petitioner challenged the imposition of an exorbitant fee of ₹60,400/- demanded by the Bar Council of Kerala from retired persons seeking enrollment. It was argued that this amount was in gross violation of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, which prescribes an enrollment fee of ₹750/-, to be shared between the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India. The petitioner’s counsel relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, wherein the apex court had categorically held that no “optional fees” or additional charges beyond the statutory limit could be levied by State Bar Councils for enrollment. The petitioner contended that the Kerala Bar Council’s imposition of ₹60,400/- as a condition for enrollment was not only illegal but also exclusionary, effectively preventing retired employees and individuals with limited means from joining the profession.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the right to practice law is a statutory right conferred upon individuals who meet the eligibility criteria under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, and this right cannot be curtailed by arbitrary decisions of State Bar Councils. It was emphasized that evening law courses have long been recognized and approved by the BCI, and many advocates practicing across the country today are products of evening colleges. Thus, denying enrollment on such a ground amounted to unjustified discrimination.
Arguments by the Respondents:
On behalf of the Union of India and the Bar Council of Kerala, it was submitted that Bar Councils are empowered to frame rules and regulations regarding enrollment and collection of fees, subject to the provisions of the Advocates Act. The respondents argued that evening LL.B. courses raise questions of quality and standard of legal education, and therefore, the Bar Council of Kerala was justified in exercising caution when scrutinizing applications based on such qualifications.
It was further argued that the petitioner, being a retired employee, had not been dependent on law as a primary career option and was now seeking entry into the profession at a later stage in life. The Bar Council contended that imposing a higher enrollment fee for retired persons was intended to regulate entry and ensure a more serious and committed pool of advocates. The respondents also highlighted that professional bodies like the Bar Council are entitled to collect certain charges for administrative purposes, welfare schemes, and other services, which justified the higher fee structure.
However, when confronted with the petitioner’s reliance on Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, the respondents were unable to dispute the Supreme Court’s categorical ruling against optional fees. They contended, however, that the Kerala Bar Council’s fee was a composite charge that included welfare contributions, administrative costs, and other components, and therefore could not be termed an “optional fee” prohibited by law.
The respondents also attempted to argue that since the writ petition sought to challenge the internal regulations of the Bar Council, the petitioner should first have approached the Bar Council of India, which exercises supervisory authority over State Bar Councils under Section 7 of the Advocates Act. They questioned the maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without first exhausting remedies before the BCI.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
Justice Easwaran S, after considering the rival submissions, found prima facie merit in the petitioner’s case. On the issue of evening LL.B. courses, the Court observed that there was no legal basis for the Bar Council of Kerala to deny enrollment solely because the petitioner had obtained his law degree through evening classes. As long as the degree was conferred by a recognized university and approved by the BCI, the mode of study could not be used as a disqualification. The Court held that the denial of enrollment on such grounds was contrary to the scheme of the Advocates Act and amounted to arbitrary exclusion.
On the issue of exorbitant fees, the Court noted the petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, which had clearly prohibited the collection of optional or additional fees for enrollment beyond the statutory limit of ₹750/-. The Court found that the demand of ₹60,400/- by the Kerala Bar Council appeared to be excessive and prima facie illegal. The High Court, therefore, issued an interim order directing the Bar Council of Kerala to accept the petitioner’s application for enrollment without insisting on the payment of optional or additional fees.
Justice Easwaran S also directed that the representation submitted by the petitioner regarding the exorbitant fee should be duly considered by the Bar Council. The Court emphasized that enrollment into the legal profession cannot be obstructed by arbitrary financial barriers, particularly when the Supreme Court has already clarified the scope of fees permissible under the Advocates Act. The matter was posted for further hearing on October 6, 2025.
Through this interim order, the Court not only protected the rights of the petitioner but also signaled a broader concern over the practices of State Bar Councils in imposing arbitrary and exclusionary conditions for enrollment. The ruling highlights the need for reforms in enrollment practices to ensure fairness, accessibility, and compliance with statutory mandates.