Can't Collect High Enrolment Fee For 'Welfare Scheme', Supreme Court Says While Issuing Notice On BCI's Transfer Petition

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a transfer petition filed by the Bar Council of India seeking to transfer to the Top Court the petitions pending in the High Courts of Kerala, Madras and Bombay challenging the enrolment fee charged by State Bar Councils.

However, the bench led by Chief Justice of India orally expressed concerns at the enrolment fee rates. When Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, the Chairperson of the BCI, submitted that fees charges by Bar Councils covered various expenses and welfare measures, CJI remarked that high enrolment fee can't be charged under the guise of welfare scheme.

"Mr Mishra you are in trouble...Enrolment you can't do it. You can ask as welfare scheme etc, but enrolment you can't..", CJI said.

The bench then issued notice in the transfer plea of the BCI. Though Mishra sought for an order to stay the proceedings in the High Court, the bench refused. CJI orally said that once the Supreme Court issues notice on the transfer petitions, High Courts generally keep the proceedings in abeyance.

At present, there are separate ongoing petitions concerning the issue in the Kerala High Court, the Bombay High Court, and the Madras High Court.

Recently, the Kerala High Court directed the Bar Council of Kerala to collect only Rs.750/- as enrolment fee from law graduates wishing to enroll, till the Bar Council of India considers a uniform fee structure. The order was passed by a division bench of Chief Justice S V N Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji in an appeal filed by the Bar Council of Kerala against the order of single judge restricting the enrolment fee to Rs. 750/-. The petitioners had challenged the exorbitant fee of Rs. 15,900/- being levied by the Kerala Bar Council on the ground that an enrolment fees of Rs. 750/- has been imposed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates’ Act. Any rule passed by Bar Council of Kerala, giving itself the authority to levy a higher charge is beyond the scope of its powers, the petitioners had argued.

Further, the Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to respond to a plea by Manimaran, a fifth-year law student, challenging the enrollment fee charged by it from law graduates. The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy had prima facie agreed that the amount was high and issued notice on the petition. The Bar Council of India and the state government were issued notice by the court.

In a similar vein, the Bombay High Court had also issued notice in a lawyer's petition challenging the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa's (BCMG) decision to enhance enrolment charges to Rs 15,000, as effective from January 2020.

Notably, the Supreme Court had previously questioned the State Bar Councils on their ability to charge more than the fees prescribed by Section 24(1)(e) of the Advocates Act 1961. According to this provision, the enrollment fee payable to the State Bar Council should be Rs. 600, with the Bar Council of India charging Rs. 150. The court, therefore, expressed surprise at the substantial disparities between the prescribed fees and the fees being charged in various states.

During the previous hearing, CJI DY Chandrachud, drew attention to the issue, stating, "I think the Bar Council of India has to intervene because the State Bar Councils are charging huge amounts for enrolment... How will a Dalit student or a student from a rural background afford this?" 

Case Title : BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA vs. AKSHAI M. SIVAN | T.P.(C) No. 001310 - 001312

Click Here To Read/Download Order