Supreme Court Limits State Bar Council Enrolment Fees: Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India (2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether State Bar Councils can charge enrolment fees exceeding the limit set by the Advocates Act, 1961.

CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Regulatory Law, Legal Profession.

Case Name: Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors.

[Judgment Date]: 30 July 2024

Date of the Judgment: 30 July 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 558
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and J B Pardiwala, J.

Can State Bar Councils (SBCs) impose additional fees on law graduates beyond the enrolment fee prescribed by the Advocates Act, 1961? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, which impacts thousands of aspiring lawyers. This judgment clarifies the extent of the SBCs’ authority in levying enrolment fees, ensuring a more transparent and accessible process for new entrants to the legal profession. The Court’s decision, authored by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, limits the fees that SBCs can charge, aligning with the legislative intent of the Advocates Act.

Case Background

The petitioner, Gaurav Kumar, challenged the validity of enrolment fees charged by various State Bar Councils (SBCs). The core issue was that SBCs were collecting fees much higher than the enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. These additional fees were often disguised under different heads such as library funds, administration fees, and welfare funds. The petitioner argued that this practice violated the statutory limit and created a financial barrier for aspiring lawyers, especially those from economically weaker backgrounds.

The Supreme Court noted that the fees charged by SBCs varied significantly, ranging from Rupees fifteen thousand to Rupees forty-two thousand. This inconsistency and the high cost of enrolment were major concerns that prompted the Court to take up the matter. The Court also transferred similar petitions from various High Courts to itself for a comprehensive adjudication.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the significant issue raised by the petitioner regarding the high enrolment fees charged by the State Bar Councils. Initially, the Court issued a notice on April 10, 2023, recognizing the importance of the matter. Subsequently, on July 17, 2023, the Court transferred similar petitions from the High Court of Kerala, the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai, and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to itself. This consolidation of cases allowed the Supreme Court to address the issue comprehensively and ensure uniformity in its decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legislation governing the legal profession in India is the Advocates Act, 1961. This Act establishes the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the State Bar Councils (SBCs). The Act outlines the functions of these bodies, the qualifications for enrolment as an advocate, and the fees associated with enrolment.

Key provisions include:

• Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961: This section specifies the enrolment fee payable to the State Bar Council as Rupees six hundred and to the Bar Council of India as Rupees one hundred and fifty. For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the fee is Rupees one hundred to the State Bar Council and Rupees twenty-five to the Bar Council of India. “he has paid, in respect of the enrolment, stamp duty, if any, chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), and an enrolment fee payable to the State Bar Council of [six hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of India, one hundred and fifty rupees by way of a bank draft drawn in favour of that Council]: Provided that where such person is a member of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and produces a certificate to that effect from such authority as may be prescribed, the enrolment fee payable by him to the State Bar Council shall be [one hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of India, twenty -five rupees].”
• Section 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961: This section outlines the functions of the State Bar Councils, including the admission of advocates to their rolls and safeguarding their rights.
• Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961: This section details the functions of the Bar Council of India, such as laying down standards of professional conduct and promoting law reform.
• Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961: This section empowers Bar Councils to make rules to carry out the purposes of Chapter II of the Act.
• Section 28 of the Advocates Act, 1961: This section empowers the State Bar Councils to make rules for the admission and enrolment of advocates.
• Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961: This section grants the Bar Council of India the general power to make rules for discharging its functions under the Act.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
• Article 265 of the Constitution of India: States that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law.

The Advocates Act is considered a complete code for regulating the legal profession, and the powers of the SBCs and BCI are derived from this Act. The Act also fits within the broader framework of the Constitution, ensuring that the legal profession is regulated fairly and equitably.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Submissions (Mr. Gaurav Kumar):

• The enrolment fee is specifically prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and SBCs are charging exorbitant fees under various heads, violating this provision.
• The rule-making powers under Section 49(1) and Section 28(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 cannot be used to charge fees beyond what is prescribed in Section 24(1)(f).
• The term “subject to the provisions of this Act” in Section 24 refers to eligibility conditions, not to charging additional fees.
• Section 6(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which allows SBCs to constitute funds, does not permit imposing additional charges with enrolment fees.
• Exorbitant enrolment fees prevent economically weaker law graduates from enrolling, violating Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act 2001 provides for welfare funds, so there is no need for exorbitant enrolment fees.

Bar Council of India’s Submissions (Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra):

• Bar Councils need adequate funds for their functions, including administrative expenses and infrastructure maintenance.
• The enrolment fee under Section 24(1)(f) was fixed in 1993 and is inadequate due to inflation.
• Fees charged include additional expenses like online data processing, ID card fees, and verification, and are linked to services provided.
• Section 6(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, gives SBCs implied powers necessary for their functions.
• Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961, allows SBCs to levy charges for services rendered under the Act.
• Fees charged at the time of enrolment are not all “enrolment fees” but charges for additional services.
• BCI can frame rules to charge reasonable fees under Section 49(1)(ah) and Section 49(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• The BCI has proposed Uniform Rules for enrolment fees to ensure uniformity.
• The Court should use its powers under Article 142 to implement a uniform fee structure and direct the government to revise the fees under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

State Bar Councils’ Submissions:

• The statutorily prescribed enrolment fee is insufficient for current economic conditions.
• Additional fees are charged for services like library and ID cards under Section 15 and Section 28 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• Additional charges are essential for statutory functions, welfare programs, and training.

Submissions on behalf of Petitioners before Kerala High Court (Mr. Raghenth Basant):

• Rules under general provisions like Section 24(1)(e) of the Advocates Act, 1961, cannot override the specific provision for enrolment fees under Section 24(1)(f).
• Rule-making powers cannot be used to frame rules contrary to the Advocates Act, 1961.
• The 1993 amendment shows that Parliament is the only competent authority to increase enrolment fees.
• Other fees cannot be a condition for enrolment as they are meant for advocates already on the rolls.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the enrolment fees charged by the SBCs are in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
2. Whether payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

Statutes

• The Advocates Act, 1961
• The Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001
• The Constitution of India

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following key principles:

1. Specific Statutory Provisions Prevail: When a statute provides a specific provision, it takes precedence over general provisions. In this case, Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, specifically prescribes the enrolment fee, and this cannot be overridden by general rule-making powers under other sections.
2. Delegated Legislation Cannot Contradict Parent Act: The power to make rules or regulations must be consistent with the parent Act. The State Bar Councils cannot make rules that contradict the specific fee structure laid down in the Advocates Act.
3. Fees Must be for Services Rendered: Any additional fees charged by the State Bar Councils must be directly linked to specific services provided and not merely a means to raise revenue. The Court found that the additional fees charged were not directly related to any specific service provided at the time of enrolment.
4. Constitutional Mandate of Equality: The Court emphasized that exorbitant enrolment fees create a financial barrier for aspiring lawyers, particularly those from economically weaker sections, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of equality before the law and the right to practice any profession.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees exceeding the limit set by Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court directed that any additional fees imposed by the State Bar Councils, under whatever name, are illegal and should not be collected. The Court also ruled that the payment of miscellaneous fees cannot be made a pre-condition for enrolment.

The Court clarified that the enrolment fee is a one-time fee and cannot be increased by the State Bar Councils through additional charges. The Court also noted that the Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act 2001 provides for welfare funds, so there is no need for exorbitant enrolment fees.

The Court also directed the Bar Council of India to formulate comprehensive guidelines for the enrolment process, ensuring transparency and uniformity across all State Bar Councils.

Flowchart of the Decision

Ratio Table

Dissent

There was no dissent in this judgment. The decision was unanimous.

Analysis

This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India is a significant step towards ensuring a fair and accessible legal profession. By limiting the enrolment fees that State Bar Councils can charge, the Court has removed a significant financial barrier that prevented many aspiring lawyers from joining the profession.

The judgment reaffirms the principle that delegated legislation cannot override the specific provisions of the parent Act. It also reinforces the importance of equality before the law and the right to practice any profession, as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

The Court’s direction to the Bar Council of India to formulate comprehensive guidelines for the enrolment process is a welcome step, as it will ensure uniformity and transparency across all State Bar Councils. This will prevent arbitrary fee structures and ensure that all aspiring lawyers have an equal opportunity to join the profession.

The judgment is also significant because it clarifies the scope of the rule-making powers of the State Bar Councils. It emphasizes that while the Bar Councils have the power to make rules, these rules cannot contradict the specific provisions of the Advocates Act.

This judgment is likely to have a positive impact on the legal profession by making it more inclusive and accessible. It will also serve as a reminder to all regulatory bodies that they must act within the bounds of the law and not create unnecessary barriers for those seeking to enter a profession.

The judgment has been widely welcomed by aspiring lawyers and legal professionals who have been advocating for a more equitable and transparent enrolment process.