The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge exorbitant fees for enrolment. This decision addresses the excessive financial burdens placed on young law graduates, particularly those from marginalised and economically weaker sections of society, when enrolling as advocates. The Court found that the current enrollment fee structure is unreasonable and violates constitutional protections.
The Supreme Court's decision, delivered by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala, emphasised that the State Bar Councils do not have the authority to charge any fees beyond what is expressly allowed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act 1961.
The Court highlighted that the imposition of such high fees infringes on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practise any profession.
This ruling came in response to petitions challenging the validity of the enrolment fees charged by SBCs. The petitioners argued that the fees were significantly higher than the enrollment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
The Supreme Court concurred, stating that the SBCs and the Bar Council of India (BCI) cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty.
The Court also noted that the decision of the SBCs to charge fees beyond the legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law.
However, the Court made it clear that this decision would have a prospective effect, meaning that the SBCs are not required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected before this judgement.
In its judgement, the Supreme Court clarified that the only permissible charges at the stage of enrolment are those stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
This includes all miscellaneous fees such as application form fees, processing fees, postal charges, police verification charges, ID card charges, administrative fees, photograph fees, etc. These fees, when combined, cannot exceed the enrollment fee prescribed in Section 24(1)(f).
The Court also referenced the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, which was enacted to create a welfare fund for advocates. Section 15 of this Act mandates that the SBCs pay annually to the welfare fund an amount equal to twenty percent of the enrolment fee received under Section 24(1)(f). The Supreme Court's ruling ensures that this obligation remains intact.
The Supreme Court has directed the SBCs and the BCI to ensure that the fees charged at the time of enrolment comply strictly with Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
The Court has prohibited the charging of enrolment or miscellaneous fees above the prescribed amount, either directly or indirectly under different nomenclatures.
This landmark decision aims to alleviate the financial burdens on young law graduates and uphold the constitutional rights of individuals entering the legal profession.
Follow us
