New Delhi, July 30, 2024 — In a landmark decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the enrolment fees for advocates will be capped at Rs.750 for those belonging to the general category and Rs.125 for advocates from Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) categories. This ruling aims to make the legal profession more accessible and equitable.
The Court’s decision comes in response to concerns about the financial barriers that high enrolment fees could pose, particularly for candidates from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. By instituting these fee limits, the Supreme Court intends to ensure that the cost of enrolling as an advocate does not become a hindrance for deserving candidates.
Background and Rationale
Previously, enrolment fees varied significantly across different states and jurisdictions, leading to inconsistencies and financial strain on aspiring advocates. The Supreme Court’s ruling seeks to standardize these fees and reduce disparities that could otherwise limit opportunities for individuals from marginalized communities.
The reduced fee for SC/ST advocates reflects a commitment to supporting social justice and inclusion within the legal profession. This measure aligns with broader efforts to address systemic inequalities and promote diversity in fields traditionally dominated by individuals from more privileged backgrounds.
Impact on the Legal Profession
Legal experts and advocates have welcomed the ruling as a progressive step towards democratizing the legal profession. By lowering financial barriers, the Court’s decision is expected to encourage more individuals from varied socio-economic backgrounds to pursue a career in law. This could lead to a more diverse and representative legal community, better reflecting the diverse society it serves.
In addition to enhancing accessibility, the ruling could stimulate interest and participation in legal education and practice among underrepresented groups. It may also set a precedent for similar reforms in other areas of professional and educational sectors where financial barriers exist.
Here are some notable cases related to the issue of Bar Councils collecting enrolment fees:
-
Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018) – This case discussed the authority of Bar Councils in relation to enrolment and regulation of fees, highlighting the limitations imposed by Section 24 of the Advocates Act.
-
Ramesh Chander v. Bar Council of India (2003) – This case dealt with disputes over the legality of fees collected by Bar Councils, emphasizing adherence to statutory limits set by the Advocates Act.
-
K.K. Verma v. Bar Council of India (2009) – Focused on challenges to the fee structure imposed by Bar Councils and the requirement to comply with the prescribed limits under the Advocates Act.
These cases illustrate how the judiciary has addressed the authority of Bar Councils in relation to enrolment fees and the adherence to statutory regulations.
The Court categorically held that State Bar Councils cannot charge any amount over the above-specified amounts under the head of “miscellaneous fee”, “stamp duty” or other charges. The State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India cannot charge any amount to admit advocates to the roll above the amount specified under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
The Advocates Act 1961 under S.24(1)(f) prescribes the enrollment fee payable to the State Bar Council as Rs. 600/- and Rs 150/- towards the Bar Council of India for advocates belonging to the general category. For advocates belonging to SC/ST categories, the amounts are Rs.100 and Rs.25 respectively. In some States, the enrolment fee goes to the extent of Rs.40,000.
The Court held that since the Parliament has specified the enrollment fee, the Bar Councils cannot violate the same. Section 24(1)(f), being a fiscal regulatory provision, has to be construed strictly, and since the Parliament has stipulated the amount in the exercise of its sovereign power, the State Bar Councils or the Bar Council of India, being delegatees under the statute, cannot alter the fiscal policy laid down by the Parliament.
By prescribing additional fees for enrolment, the State Bar Councils have created additional substantive obligations for enrolment, which are not traceable to any provisions of the Advocates Act.
The judgment authored by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that charging exorbitant fees as a pre-condition for enrolment creates barriers, especially for those belonging to the marginalised sections, to pursue their profession. Since the candidates have little agency at the time of enrolment, they are forced to fulfill the exorbitant demands made by the Bar Councils, the Court noted.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was deciding a batch of petitions challenging the different enrolment fees being charged by different state bar councils as exorbitant. The lead petition of the issue is titled Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India.This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s role in shaping policies that uphold the principles of justice and equality, reinforcing its commitment to making the legal system accessible to all.
It may be noted that in 2023 a 5-judge Constitution Bench while upholding the validity of the All-India Bar Examination has also asked the Bar Council of India to ensure that the enrolment fee does not become “oppressive”.
The batch of petitions raise the common question of whether the charging of exorbitant charging of enrolment fees is a violation of Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act 1961. The petitioners have contended that it is the duty of the Bar Council (BCI) of India to ensure that exorbitant enrolment fees are not charged.
The Court also clarified that the Bar Councils are at liberty to fee other charges for the work they do for advocates, but they cannot be levied as enrollment fees.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing efforts to create a more inclusive and equitable legal system. As states and legal bodies implement these new fee structures, stakeholders will be watching closely to assess the impact on enrolment rates and the overall diversity within the legal profession.
Advocacy groups and legal organizations will likely continue to monitor the effects of this ruling and may push for further reforms aimed at ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic status, have the opportunity to pursue their legal aspirations.
This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s role in shaping policies that uphold the principles of justice and equality, reinforcing its commitment to making the legal system accessible to all.