Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 02.05.2025 vs Bar Council Of Himachal Pradesh And ... on 2 May, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:12192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 10988 of 2023
Decided on : 02.05.2025
Vanshaj Azad and others.
...Petitioners
Versus
Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh and another.
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioners : Mr. Vanshaj Azad in person
(through V.C.), with Mr. Rajul
Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior
Advocate, with M/s Vishal Singh
Thakur and Sarthak Mehta,
Advocate, for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners
approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the fact that the
Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh was charging enrollment fee
in excess of what was prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the
Advocates Act, 1961.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:12192
2. When this matter was being heard by this Court, the
Court was informed that similar issue was pending adjudication
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
3. Now, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in terms of
judgment dated 30.07.2024, passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 352
of 2023, titled Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others.
(2025) 1 SCC 641, has been pleased to declare the act of the
State Bar Councils of charging enrollment fee beyond the
express mandate of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, to be
bad in law. The conclusions of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court are quoted hereinbelow:-
"I. Conclusions
118. In view of the above discussion, we conclude
that:
118.1. SBCs cannot charge "enrolment fees"
beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)
(f) as it currently stands,
118.2. Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the
fiscal preconditions subject to which an advocate can be
enrolled on State rolls. SBCs and BCI cannot demand
payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee
and stamp duty, if any, as a precondition to enrolment;
2025:HHC:12192
118.3. The decision of SBCs to charge fees and
charges at the time of enrolment in excess of the legal
stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) violates Article 14 and
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; and
118.4. This decision will have prospective effect.
SBCs are not required to refund the excess enrolment
fees collected before the date of this judgment."
4. Mr. Vanshaj Azad, petitioner No.1, who has made
his submissions in person through video conferencing has
submitted that as the act of the Bar Council of charging
Enrollment fee beyond express legal stipulation under Section
24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, has been declared as bad by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, a mandamus be
issued to the respondent-Bar Council, to refund the excess
Enrollment fee charged from him and other petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh has submitted that though
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold
that the State Bar Council cannot charge enrollment fee beyond
the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the
Advocates Act, however, Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of
2025:HHC:12192
the conclusions arrived at Paragraph No. 118.4 has been
pleased to specifically order that the decision will have
prospective effect and said Bar Councils are not required to
refund the excess enrollment fee collected before the date of
this judgment.
6. To this, petitioner in person submitted that these
findings returned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same
do not bind this Court from issuing a mandamus, as prayed for.
In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs.
Onkar Nath Dhar, (2021) 19 SCC 163 as well as High Court
Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2024) 6 SCC 267.
7. Having heard the respective submissions of the
parties and after going through the judgments relied upon by
the petitioner in person and also the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in terms of the conclusions
returned in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
(supra), this Court is of the considered view that the
2025:HHC:12192
conclusions which have been returned by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others (supra),
including the conclusion returned in Paragraph No. 118.4, are
in rem and binding upon this Court.
8. Article 142 of the Constitution of India provides that
the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass
such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing
complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and
any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable
throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be
prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until
provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the
President may by order prescribe.
9. In terms of the judgment that has been passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India
and Others (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased
to hold that the State Bar Councils cannot charge enrollment
fee beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f)
of the Advocates Act, as it currently stands. Hon'ble Supreme
Court has further held that Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act
2025:HHC:12192
specifically lays down the fiscal preconditions subject to which
an Advocate can be enrolled on State rolls and State Bar
Councils and Bar Council of India cannot demand payment of
fee other than the stipulated enrollment fee and Stamp Duty, if
any, as a precondition to enrollment. Hon'ble Supreme Court
further went on to hold that the decision of State Bar Councils
to charge fee and charges at the time of enrollment in excess of
the legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act
violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. It is
in the backdrop of these conclusions arrived at by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that it went on to thereafter hold that the
decision will have prospective effect and State Bar Councils are
not required to refund the excess enrollment fee collected from
the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
10. This Court is of the considered view that there is a
reason and a rational as to why the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was pleased to issue this direction. The reason obviously was
that the aggrieved persons before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
were made to pay enrollment fee in excess of the express legal
stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
2025:HHC:12192
Obviously, as the petitioners were aggrieved by the excess
charge of the enrollment fee, they had also sought refund
thereof. It is in the backdrop of these facts that Hon'ble
Supreme Court whereas on one hand was pleased to hold that
the State Bar Councils cannot charge enrollment fee in excess
of the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the
Advocates Act but it thereafter went on to direct that the
decision will have prospective effect and State Bar Councils are
not required to refund the excess enrollment fees collected
before the date of this judgment.
11. Now in case, the prayer of the petitioner before this
Court is acceded to by the Court then this Court would not only
be passing a direction by overreaching the conclusions arrived
at by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gaurav Kumar Vs.
Union of India and others (supra), but this Court shall also be
negating what is contained in Paragraph No. 118.4 of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
12. In fact, in the considered view of this Court as
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consciously issued a direction that
the judgment shall be having a prospective effect and the State
2025:HHC:12192
Bar Councils are not required to refund the excess enrollment
fee collected before the date of this judgment and as admittedly
excess enrollment fee stood collected from the petitioners by
the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh before the date of the
delivery of this judgment, no direction can be issued to the
State Bar Council to refund the same, as is being prayed for by
the petitioners.
13. This Court is also of the considered view that the
petitioners otherwise also cannot plead that the conclusion
arrived at by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 118
of the judgment (supra) are otherwise acceptable to them, but
conclusions mentioned in sub-para 4 thereof are not acceptable
to them or not relatable to them.
14. Accordingly, as this Court does not concurs with the
petitioners that the directions contained in Paragraph No. 118.4
do not come in the way of the petitioners for issuance of a writ
of mandamus to the respondent-Bar Council to refund the
excess enrollment fee, their prayer to this extent is negated by
the Court.
15. The petitions stands disposed of, accordingly.
2025:HHC:12192
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
May 02, 2025
(Shivank Thakur)
