Social Capital & Networks Play Important Role In Legal Career; Lawyers From Marginalised Sections Face Difficulties: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in its recent decision notably highlighted the economic struggles and systemic discrimination that law graduates from marginalised sections of society faced in the legal fraternity. 

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the exorbitant enrolment fee charged by State Bar Councils (SCBs) across the states created additional obstacles for underprivileged law graduates to commence a sound practising set up. 

The Court explained that in India, on the face of it, the enrollment fees applied equally to all applicants may seem fair, but at a deeper level this 'fair approach' actually creates barriers for students from poorer families or marginalized communities and promotes 'systemic exclusion and discrimination'. 

"The burden of payment of enrolment fees and other miscellaneous fees imposed by the SBCs falls equally on all persons seeking enrolment.While the burden is facially neutral, it perpetuates structural discrimination against persons from marginalized and economically weaker sections of the society. In more than one way, the process of enrolment perpetuates a culture of systemic exclusion and discrimination that impacts the entry of law graduates into the legal profession and even beyond.  

The bench underlined that the path to becoming a lawyer in India is not as easy as it may seem. Right from the expenses incurred for entrance exams to Law Schools and preparatory classes to the high fees charged as tuition in the institutions (either paid out-of-pocket or through loans) along with internships and extra activities pile up the financial burden of each aspiring lawyer. 

For any law graduate to make it big in the legal profession she/ he would need access to the right connections and promising opportunities. This puts graduates from marginalized communities at a disadvantage, as they typically lack these valuable social networks. Thus the Court observed that there was an impending need to have greater representation of lawyers from marginalised communities to uplift their coming generations. 

"Social capital and networks play an important role in the Indian legal setup in advancing legal careers. Most litigation chambers hire advocates through networks and community linkages. The structure of the Indian legal system is such that social capital and networks also play an important role in getting clients. The lack of social capital and network is acutely felt by advocates from marginalized communities. The marginalized sections of our society face insurmountable obstacles in navigating the Indian legal system. This is further compounded by their lack of representation in the legal profession. Greater representation of the marginalized communities in the legal profession will increase the diversity within the profession, enable the marginalized sections to trust the legal system and facilitate the delivery of legal aid and services to unrepresented communities." 

The Court pointed out that in 1993, Parliament had increased the enrollment fee for general candidates from 250 rupees to 750 rupees. At that time, the fees for SC and ST candidates were left unchanged, showing Parliament's awareness of the socio-economic challenges faced by these communities.

However, the Court noted that the current fee structure actually reinforces the marginalization of SC and ST candidates. For example, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa charges general candidates a total fee of 15,000 rupees, while SC and ST candidates pay 14,500 rupees. Similarly, in Manipur, general category candidates pay 16,650 rupees, and SC and ST candidates pay 16,050 rupees. It was observed that this minimal difference in fees goes against the intent of the Advocates Act.

"The present enrolment fee structure reinforces the socio-economic marginalization of the SCs and STs. For instance, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa charges a cumulative fee of Rupees fifteen thousand from the general candidates and Rupees fourteen thousand five hundred from SC and ST candidates. Similarly, in Manipur, the general category candidates pay Rupees sixteen thousand six hundred fifty as an enrolment fee while a candidate from the SC and ST category pays Rupees sixteen thousand fifty. Thus, the candidates from the SC and ST category practically pay as much as the candidates from the general category. This is evidently against the legislative policy of the Advocates Act." 

The bench held that the excessive fees policy of SCBs was contrary to the prescribed limit under S.24 (1)(f) of the Advocates Act and in violation of the principles of 'substantive equality' under Article 14. 

Referring to the decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Court stressed that substantive equality was a sub-set of Article 14 which reflects the significance of fair treatment of each human in every effort or opportunity s/he strives was. In Joseph Shine, the court underlined the need to eliminate discrimination at individual, institutional, and systemic levels.

"Article 14 has a substantive content that mirrors the quest for ensuring fair treatment of an individual in every aspect of human endeavour and existence. In Joseph Shine v. Union of India,  one of us (D Y Chandrachud, J) observed that substantive equality is directed at eliminating individual, institutional, and systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups which effectively undermines their full and equal participation in society at the social, economic, political, and cultural levels"

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.40,000.

A Higher Climb For The Marginalized, First Generation & Non-NLU Graduates: Court Observes 

The Court pertinently highlighted that young graduates in general have a slow start in securing financial independence when undertaking work at a merger stipend between ₹10,000 to ₹50,000 per month, depending on their location and the chambers they join.

However, the climb to success is steeper for those from marginalized sections, first-generation advocates, or graduates from non-National Law Universities to gain acceptance in chambers and law firms and kick-start at an advantage. 

Young law graduates who start litigating right after graduation earn anywhere between Rupees ten thousand to Rupees fifty thousand per month, depending upon the location of their practice and the chambers they join. The structure of the Indian legal setup is such that the struggle for getting acceptance in chambers and law firms is greater for those who belong to the marginalized sections, first-generation advocates, or law graduates without a degree from a National Law University.

This struggle is further compounded by language barriers that underprivileged law students such as those from the Dalit community face in a largely English-dominated profession. The requirement of paying high enrolment fees creates an additional obstacle for these aspiring lawyers. This financial burden disproportionately affects those from marginalized backgrounds, further limiting their access to the legal profession.

"A recent report suggests that many law students from the Dalit community face English language barriers, reducing their opportunities of practicing before the High Courts and the Supreme Court where the court proceedings are in English. In a legal system that is predisposed against the marginalized, the pre-condition of paying exorbitant fees in the name of enrolment fee creates a further barrier." 

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.