+91 964 334 1948
30 Oct 2025, 03:49 PM
The Supreme Court today(October 30) has given one last chance to the State Bar Councils to comply with its directions issued last year to not charge anything beyond Rs. 750 as enrollment fees.
In Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024) judgment, the Supreme Court had said that the Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It is stipulated in Section 24 that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs. 750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs. 125 for advocates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories.
In a contempt case initiated for non-compliance of this judgment, the Court has now directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to again send written circulars to the State Bar Councils for compliance. The Court also warned that in future, if it comes to know that any State Bar Council is charging beyond the statutory fees, the Court will directly hold them in contempt of Court.
"We make it clear that in future if it is brought to our notice that any of the State Bar Council is charging beyond the statutory fee prescribed, we shall proceed to hold the responsible authority guilty of contempt. This aspect should also be highlighted by the Bar Council of India in the Circular we are asking them to issue."
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a contempt petition filed against the West Bengal Bar Council.
The contempt petition has been filed by a fresh law graduate alleging that initially she was asked to pay the statutory amount of Rs. 750 for enrollment. But when she went to collect her enrollment certificate and retrieve her original academic documents, the petitioner was asked to pay an additional amount of Rs. 4, 650. She alleged that the Bar Council took hold of her original documents and refused to return without the additional payment asked.
It was told to her that the amount was described under heads such as "library development fees", "building fund" and "advocate welfare funds" etc.
On October 17, the Court directed BCI's counsel, Advocate Radhika Gautam, to take appropriate instructions in this regard. Today, she informed that BCI has already informed all State Bar Councils across the country to duty bound comply with the August 2024 judgment.
The Court noted that despite BCI's communication, some State Bar Councils have failed to do so.
"It appears that although the Bar Council of India has taken up the issue with all State Bar Councils as regards due compliance of the directions issued by this Court, referred to above, yet some of the State Bar Councils still continue to recover in excess of the statutory fee prescribed."
The bench has asked against for the BCI to take up this issue with the State Bar Councils immediately and that the latter must respond to it. Four weeks have been given by the Court to complete this exercise.
"We give one last opportunity to the Bar Council of India to take up the aforesaid issue very seriously with all State Bar Councils and this time it should be in the form of a written circular. Once the written Circulars reach each of the State Bar Council by email, then they should respond immediately to the Bar Council of India. Let this exercise be completed by the Bar Council of India within a period of four weeks from today."
On the aspect of the West Bengal Bar Council withholding the documents, the Court also issued a general direction that no State Bar Council cannot do such a thing. It was ordered that the documents of the law graduate should be duly returned to her.
"We also direct the Bar Council of India to inform all State Bar Councils that they cannot withhold the documents of the applicant(s) who have applied for enrollment. If any applicant(s) wants his documents back, those documents shall be immediately returned to the concerned applicant(s).
We make it clear that none of the State Bar Councils shall withhold the documents produced by the concerned applicant(s) on the ground of non-payment of fees demanded. Once the amount as statutorily prescribed is paid by the applicant(s) and a request is made for return of the documents, those documents shall be immediately returned."
Matter will be heard after 4 weeks.
It should be noted that the same bench has heard another contempt petition for the non-compliance with the August 2024 directions by the Karnataka Bar Council. In this case, the Court was informed that the Karnataka Bar Council was collecting additional fees as "optional fees". The Court had clarified that no State Bar Council can charge any amount as optional fees.
In January, this year, the BCI moved an application in the 2024 judgment seeking to enhance the enrollment fees to Rs 25,000.
Case Details: PRIYADARSHINI SAHA v PINAKI RANJAN BANERJEE
The present contempt petition was filed through Advocate-on-Recod Paromita Majumdar. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Naman Sherstra, Adv.; Mr. Chirantan Saha, Adv.; Ms. Meenakshi Vimal, Adv.; Ms. Tanu Jain, Adv.; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thalour, Adv.; Mr. Karan Sherwal, Adv.