State Bar Councils Cannot Charge More Than Statutory Enrolment Fee: Supreme Court Caps Fees for New Advocates

Gaurav Kumar challenged under Article 32 the fees that State Bar Councils charge when admitting advocates to their rolls, which far exceed the enrolment fee prescribed by Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961; similar petitions pending in the Kerala High Court were transferred to this Court (paras 1, 72-73). The Bar Councils said they needed the money for their functions and charged extra heads such as verification, application, identity card and library fees, while the BCI asked the Court to use Article 142 to fix a uniform fee (paras 10-12, 77).

The Advocates Act is a complete code, and a delegate cannot widen the parent law; Section 24(1)(f), fixing the fee 'in respect of the enrolment', covers the whole enrolment process, so Bar Councils cannot levy more by rules or under other heads (paras 59-61, 75). Sums such as the Rule 40 payment can be collected only from advocates already on the rolls (para 80). Fees far above the statutory amount create a barrier for young graduates, who often earn Rs 10,000 to Rs 50,000 a month, especially those from marginalised and economically weaker sections, offending substantive equality and dignity and amounting to manifest arbitrariness under Article 14 (paras 86-94). A fee levied without authority of law is not a reasonable restriction, so the excess also violates Article 19(1)(g) (paras 95-102). Bar Councils may raise funds from enrolled advocates for services rendered, and no case was made out to apply Article 142 to the BCI's draft rules (paras 103-107). The Bar Councils' statutory 20% contribution to the advocates' welfare fund is unaffected (para 106).