New Delhi, July 30, 2024 – In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has declared that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils cannot charge more than ₹750 from general category advocates and ₹125 from those in the SC/ST categories as enrolment fees. The verdict is a significant step towards ensuring that aspiring lawyers, especially those from marginalized communities, are not burdened with the fees at the start of their careers.
Key Points of the Judgment
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that charging inflated fees under various pretexts such as "miscellaneous fees" or "stamp duty" is unconstitutional. The court noted that such practices violate the fundamental rights of young advocates, particularly those from economically weaker sections, and infringe upon Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution and Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
Background and Implications
The case was brought to the forefront by petitions challenging the high enrolment fees levied by several State Bar Councils, which in some instances amounted to as much as ₹40,000. The petitioners argued that these fees effectively deny entry to the legal profession for many aspiring lawyers who lack the financial resources.
Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked, "Some State Bar Councils were charging ₹40,000 as enrolment fee. This practice creates substantial barriers for those from marginalized communities to pursue their legal careers."
Legislative Clarity and Future Directions
The Advocates Act of 1961, under Section 24(1)(f), specifies that the enrolment fee should be ₹600 for the State Bar Council and ₹150 for the Bar Council of India for general category advocates. For SC/ST categories, the fees are ₹100 and ₹25, respectively. The Supreme Court directed that only Parliament has the authority to amend these fees, and any additional charges imposed by the State Bar Councils or the BCI are unauthorized and unconstitutional.
The judgment clarified that while Bar Councils can charge for services like legal aid post-enrolment, they cannot demand any fees beyond the statutory enrolment fee at the time of admission. This decision aims to eliminate the financial hurdles that deter many qualified individuals from entering the legal profession.
Prospective Application and Non-Refund Policy
The court's decision is to be applied prospectively, meaning that the Bar Councils are not required to refund the excess fees already collected. This provision ensures a smooth transition without disrupting the current financial structures of the Bar Councils.
Broader Impact on the Legal Profession
This ruling is a significant step towards promoting equality and accessibility within the legal profession. It underscores the judiciary's role in protecting the rights of individuals to pursue their professions without extra financial burdens. The judgment aligns with the principles of substantive equality, ensuring that economic barriers do not start systemic discrimination against marginalized sections of society.
The decision has been widely hailed as a victory for young and aspiring lawyers across the country. By curbing the imposition of unconstitutional enrolment fees, the Supreme Court has taken a crucial step towards fostering a more inclusive and equitable legal profession in India.
For more details on the judgment and its implications, refer to the case details: Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 352/2023.
Read more: State can impose taxes on Mining Activities says Supreme Court of India.
This decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing efforts to ensure that the legal profession in India remains accessible and fair, paving the way for a diverse and inclusive legal community.
For further updates and detailed analysis, stay tuned to our trusted coverage on this evolving issue on "In Bulletin".
