Bar Councils Can't Collect Any Amount Exceeding Fee Specified Under S.24 Of Advocates Act For Enrolment : Supreme Court
Anmol Kaur Bawa
30 July 2024 5:14 AM GMT
The Court clarified that all amounts collected by the Bar Councils at the time of enrolment would qualify as 'enrolment fee'.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 30) held that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs.750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs.125 for advocates belonging to SC/ST categories.
The Court categorically held that State Bar Councils cannot charge any amount over the above-specified amounts under the head of "miscellaneous fee", "stamp duty" or other charges. The Court specified that all fees charged by the bar councils, under whatever name, as a pre-condition for enrolment, would qualify as 'enrolment fee'. Therefore, money collected by Bar Councils in the name of verification fee, building fund, benevolent fund etc., which are stated to be one-time payments, at the time of enrolment, would be enrolment fee.
"Thus, all the miscellaneous fees collected from a candidate at the time of enrolment essentially serve as a pre-condition to the process of enrolment. Section 24(1) specifically lays down the pre-conditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls. Since Section 24(1)(f) specifies the amount that can be charged by the SBCs as an enrolment fee, the SBCs and the BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee as a pre-condition to enrolment, " the Court stated.
"It is clarified that the only charges permissible at the stage of enrolment are those stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. All other miscellaneous fees, including but not limited to, application form fees, processing fees, postal charges, police verification charges, ID card charges, administrative fees, photograph fees etc. charged from the candidates at the time of admission are to be construed as part of the enrollment fee. The fees charged under these or any similar heads cannot cumulatively exceed the enrolment fee prescribed in Section 24(1)(f)."
The Advocates Act of 1961 under S. 24(1)(f) prescribes the enrollment fee payable to the State Bar Council as Rs. 600/- and Rs 150/- towards the Bar Council of India for advocates belonging to the general category. For advocates belonging to SC/ST categories, the amounts are Rs.100 and Rs.25 respectively. A detailed chart on the state-wise fee chargeable by different bar councils can be accessed here. In some States, the enrolment fee goes to the extent of Rs.42,000.
The Court held that since the Parliament has specified the enrollment fee, the Bar Councils cannot violate the same. Section 24(1)(f), being a fiscal regulatory provision, has to be construed strictly, and since the Parliament has stipulated the amount in the exercise of its sovereign power, the State Bar Councils or the Bar Council of India, being delegatees under the statute, cannot alter the fiscal policy laid down by the Parliament.
By prescribing additional fees for enrolment, the State Bar Councils have created additional substantive obligations for enrolment, which are not traceable to any provisions of the Advocates Act.
The judgment authored by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that charging exorbitant fees as a pre-condition for enrolment creates barriers, especially for those belonging to the marginalised sections, to pursue their profession. Since the candidates have little agency at the time of enrolment, they are forced to fulfill the exorbitant demands made by the Bar Councils, the Court noted.
At the same time, the Court declared that the judgment will have a prospective effect only, meaning that the Bar Councils are not required to refund the enrolment fees collected in excess of the statutory amount so far.
The Court also clarified that the Bar Councils are at liberty to fee other charges for the work they do for advocates, but they cannot be levied as enrollment fees.
"Once the advocates are enrolled on the State rolls, the Bar Councils can charge fees for the services provided to the advocates in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act. It is for the SBCs and the BCI to devise an appropriate method of charging fees that is fair and just not only for the law graduates intending to enroll, but also for the advocates already enrolled on the State rolls. There are several reasonable ways by which the SBCs and BCI can and already do collect funds at later stages of an advocate's career. Unlike an enrollment fee charged before a graduate is given a fair chance to earn a living, such sources of income are directly correlated to the advocates' practice."
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was deciding a batch of petitions challenging the different enrolment fees being charged by different state bar councils as exorbitant. The lead petition of the issue is titled Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India.
The batch of petitions raised the common question of whether the charging of exorbitant charging of enrolment fees is a violation of Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act 1961. The petitioners have contended that it is the duty of the Bar Council (BCI) of India to ensure that exorbitant enrolment fees are not charged.
It may be noted that in 2023 a 5-judge Constitution Bench while upholding the validity of the All-India Bar Examination also asked the Bar Council of India to ensure that the enrolment fee does not become "oppressive".
"We also have one caveat arising from the plea that different State Bar Councils are charging different fees for enrolment. This is something which needs the attention of the Bar Council of India, which is not devoid of the powers to see that a uniform pattern is observed and the fee does not become oppressive at the threshold of young students joining the Bar", the Constitution Bench judgment led by Justice SK Kaul had observed in the judgment (Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors.)
Case Details : Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 352/2023 and connected cases.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519
