Introduction:

The Supreme Court recently heard a public interest petition filed by Advocate Sanyam Gandhi, appearing as petitioner-in-person, challenging the fees and other incidental charges imposed for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The petitioner contended that the Bar Council of India (BCI) levies an examination fee of Rs.3,500, which he argued violates the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024). In that case, a three-judge bench led by former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had held that under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the enrolment fee for advocates cannot exceed Rs.750 for general category candidates and Rs.125 for those from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner argued that imposing a Rs.3,500 charge for the AIBE contravenes this judgment and disproportionately impacts young advocates who are financially constrained.

During the proceedings, a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan took cognizance of the matter.

Arguments:

The petitioner submitted that the hefty examination fees violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality and the right to practice any profession. He contended that young advocates, who are already struggling to establish themselves in the profession, should not be burdened with exorbitant fees merely to validate their eligibility to practice. He further emphasized that the imposition of additional incidental charges further exacerbates financial difficulties for fresh law graduates.

Judgement:

In response, Justice Pardiwala observed that the Bar Council of India requires funds to sustain its operations. He remarked, “You want the Bar Council to survive or not? We have otherwise also chopped off their upper limbs and lower limbs. Now, they are also to survive. They have a staff to maintain. They have to recover something. Once you pay this amount of Rs.3,500, you will start earning Rs.3,50,000. What is the problem in initially paying Rs.3,500 to BCI?” This observation highlighted the financial necessity of the fee from the perspective of the regulatory body. Furthermore, Justice Pardiwala questioned the petitioner’s decision to invoke Article 32 jurisdiction, suggesting that the matter could have been pursued before a High Court. In response, the petitioner asserted that the issue involves the fundamental rights of aspiring advocates and thus warranted direct intervention by the Supreme Court.

After hearing the arguments, the Court directed the petitioner to first make a representation to the Bar Council of India regarding the fee issue. The bench stated, “We are of the view that the petitioner should bring it to the notice of the Bar Council of India that this amount of Rs.3,500 plus incidental charges are violative or rather contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court. It shall be open for the petitioner to prefer an appropriate representation and wait for the response of the BCI. If there is no response within a reasonable time, he may come back. Even if there is a negative response, he may come back.” The Court thus refrained from issuing an immediate ruling on the matter but left the door open for further judicial review if the BCI failed to address the petitioner’s concerns satisfactorily.