State Bar Councils can’t charge excess fees for enrolling law graduates: SC

The bench said that the SBCs and the Bar Council of India (BCI) cannot demand any enrolment fee other than what is stipulated under section 24(1)(f) of the Act, which prescribes a fee of `750 for the general category and `125 for SC/ST candidates.

Section 24(1)(f) is a fiscal regulatory provision and the SBCs and BCI, being delegates of Parliament, do not have any legislative powers to “alter or modify the fiscal policy laid down by Parliament”, the court said. After the advocates are on the state rolls, the Bar Councils can charge fees for the services provided to the advocates within the Act’s provisions, the top court said. The excess fees also violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, it said.

The SBCs and BCI have to come up with an appropriate method of charging fees that is “fair not just for the law graduates intending to enrol, but also for advocates already enrolled on the state rolls”, it said.

The bench said, “The basis for the fees imposed by the SBCs has to be traceable to the provisions of the statute. There is no express provision in the Advocates Act empowering the SBCs to levy fees, except for the enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, under Section 24(1)(f), at the time of admission of advocates on the state roll. The decision of the SBCs to charge miscellaneous fees is contrary to the legislative prescription of the Advocates Act”.

Levying exorbitant fees as a pre-condition to enrolment serves to “denigrate the dignity of those who face social and economic barriers in the advancement of their legal careers”, the top court said, adding, “dignity is crucial to substantive equality”.

“This effectively perpetuates systemic discrimination against persons from marginalised and economically weaker sections by undermining their equal participation in the legal profession. Therefore, the current enrolment fee structure charged by SBCs is contrary to the principle of substantive equality,” it said.

However, the bench clarified that since SBCs have been levying the enrolment fee for a considerable time and using it to carry out their daily function, the judgment will apply prospectively and they do not have to refund the excess fees.