Punjab & Haryana HC Directs BCI To Decide Representation Of Lawyer Challenging Separate Fee Charged For AIBE

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has asked Bar Council of India (BCI) to decide representation of a lawyer challenging charging of separate fees of Rs 3500 besides registration fees for All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "This Court declines interference at this stage on the merits of the matter and directs the respondent-Bar Council of India to consider and decide the representation...made by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass a speaking order thereon."

The PIL was filed by Tushar Tanwar, a lawyer by profession who highlighted that no enabling provision under the statute to empower the Bar Council of India to charge examination fee for AIBE.

It sought issuance of direction declaring that the fee charged by the BCI on account of application fees for AIBE of Rs.3500 plus other incidental charges from General/OBC candidates and Rs.2500 plus other incidental charges from SC/ST candidates violates section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and infringes Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution  and is against the judgment of the Apex Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India.

The direction was also sought to show as to how the fee is being collected in the form of AIBE as it is unreasonable, infringes Article 19(1)(g), arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Gaurav Kumar case.

While setting clear limits on the State Bar enrolment fees, the Supreme Court had clarified in Gaurav Kumar case that any amount collected by them from lawyers as a pre-condition to enrol them would amount to 'enrolment fee'.

The Court had also emphasized that Bar Councils should find other ways to collect fees from enrolled advocates for their services. The bench has advised SBCs and BCI to develop fair methods for charging fees. These methods should consider both new law graduates and already enrolled advocates. The court pointed out that there are existing ways to collect funds from practising advocates.

Mr. Tushar Tanwar-petitioner in person.

Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate, for respondent-BCI.

Title: Tushar Tanwar v. Bar Council of India

Click here to read/download the order