In a landmark ruling today, the Supreme Court determined that the exorbitant enrollment fees charged by State Bar Councils ( SBCs ) infringe upon an aspiring lawyer’s right to choose a profession and their dignity. The court asserted that requiring lawyers from marginalised sections to pay high enrollment fees violates principles of equality.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ruled that enrollment fees cannot exceed Rs. 750 for general category advocates and Rs. 125 for those from SC/ST categories.
The court highlighted the essential connection between the right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) and the rights to dignity and equality under Articles 21 and 14, respectively. It emphasised that the ability to choose a profession and earn a livelihood ensures an individual’s dignity and equal standing in society.
“Dignity is crucial for substantive equality. The dignity of an individual includes the right to develop their potential fully. The right to pursue a chosen profession and earn a livelihood is integral to an individual’s dignity. Charging exorbitant enrollment fees creates barriers to entering the legal profession,” the court noted.
The court found that high enrollment fees particularly hinder those from marginalised and economically weaker sections from entering the legal profession. It stated that such fees perpetuate systemic discrimination by undermining the equal participation of individuals from these communities.
The ruling emphasised that the excessive fees imposed by SBCs violate Article 14 by creating economic barriers for marginalised individuals seeking to join the legal profession. It deemed the current enrollment fee structure as manifestly arbitrary and contrary to the principle of substantive equality.
Under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act of 1961, the prescribed enrollment fee payable to the State Bar Council is Rs. 600/- for general category advocates and Rs. 100/- for SC/ST advocates, with an additional Rs. 150/- and Rs. 25/- respectively, towards the Bar Council of India. The court noted that some states charge as much as Rs. 40,000.
The court underscored the responsibility of Bar Councils to ensure greater inclusivity and representation of lawyers from diverse backgrounds. It referenced the decision in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, where ensuring equality through affirmative action was seen as contributing to substantive equality.
Additionally, the court referred to the principles established in Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State of Karnataka for challenging delegated legislation. It concluded that the SBC’s policy of charging exorbitant fees was manifestly arbitrary.
The Supreme Court reiterated that under Article 19(1)(g) and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, advocates listed on state rolls can practise in all Indian courts. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions as outlined in Article 19(6).
The bench observed that the excessive variance in fee structures across SBCs, ranging from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 42,000, creates an economic embargo for aspiring lawyers from poor backgrounds. The court declared that the excessive enrollment fees were unreasonable and infringed Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The court referenced the decisions in Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, Jalalabad, and R M Seshadri v. District Magistrate, noting that any levied fees must align with the legislative intent of the Parent Act.
Ultimately, the court ruled that SBCs could not charge more than the specified amounts under the guise of “miscellaneous fees,” “stamp duty,” or other charges. It clarified that all fees collected as a pre-condition for enrollment qualify as enrollment fees and cannot exceed the amounts stipulated in Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
This judgement will have prospective effect, meaning Bar Councils are not required to refund excess enrollment fees collected so far. However, the court allowed SBCs to charge fees for services provided to advocates after enrollment.
The bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, addressed a batch of petitions challenging the excessive enrollment fees charged by various state bar councils. The lead petition in this issue is titled Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Bar Councils must adhere to the fee structure specified by the Parliament under the Advocates Act and cannot impose arbitrary fees that hinder the entry of young law graduates, particularly those from marginalised sections, into the legal profession.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
