1. The petitioner in-person is before this Court seeking
v. Issue a direction to the respondents to take expeditious
steps to digitize and conduct the enrolment application
process through a fully functional and accessible online
portal in order to reduce logistical burdens, ensure
transparency, and facilitate ease of access;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
vi. Pass such other or further orders or directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ravichandragouda
R.Patil, party-in-person, learned counsel Smt.Archana Magdum
for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Rajashekhar
Burji appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner, appearing in-person, is said to have
enrolled as an advocate in the month of October 2024. It is the
case of the petitioner that beyond the prescribed statutory fee of
₹750/-, the respondent No.1-Karnataka State Bar Council has
been collecting optional fees of ₹6800/-. It transpires that
₹750/- is the only fee that is legally sanctioned for collection in
terms of the Advocates Act, 1961. The issue regarding whether
the respondents could charge fees beyond what is stipulated
under the Statute need not detain this Court for long or delve
deep into the matter.
4. The Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case
of GAURAV KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS1,
considers this issue, and holds that the charging of enrolment
(2025)1 SCC 641
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
fees, in excess of the statutory stipulation, is impermissible in
law. The judgment of the Apex Court reads as follows:
"64. While acting as a delegate of Parliament, SBCs
and BCI can frame rules under the Advocates Act.
However, any rule enacted by SBCs is only ancillary
and cannot be so exercised to bring into existence
substantive rights, obligations or disabilities not
contemplated by the provisions of the parent
enactment. [Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of H.P.,
(2000) 3 SCC 40, para 14] Further, the rules must
align with the object and purpose of the Advocates
Act, namely, the creation of a common Bar and
regulation of legal practitioners and their
qualifications, enrolment, right to practise, and
discipline.
*** *** ***
72. From the above discussion, we can cull out the
following principles:
72.1. A delegate cannot act contrary to the express
provisions and object of the parent legislation;
72.2. A delegate cannot widen or constrict the
scope of the parent legislation or the legislative
policy prescribed under it; and
72.3. A fiscal provision has to be construed strictly
and a delegate cannot consider any circumstance,
factors or condition not contemplated by the parent
legislation.
73. The legislative policy of enrolment and
admission of advocates is contained in Chapter III
of the Advocates Act. Section 24(1) lays down the
qualifications subject to which an advocate may be
admitted on a State roll. Section 24(1)(f) provides
that the enrolment fee payable by general
candidates is rupees seven hundred fifty and by SC
and ST candidates, rupees one hundred and twenty-
five. Section 24(1)(f) reflects the legislative policy
of the Advocates Act that subject to the fulfilment
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
of other conditions of Section 24(1), the payment of
the stipulated monetary amount will make a person
eligible to be admitted as an advocate.
74. Presently, SBCs charge enrolment fees in the
following manner : (i) they charge an enrolment fee
according to the legal stipulation under Section
24(1)(f), but charge miscellaneous fees, and (ii)
they charge an enrolment fee beyond the legal
stipulation in addition to charging miscellaneous
fees. Section 24(1)(f) expressly stipulates that the
total enrolment fees shall be rupees seven hundred
fifty for advocates belonging to the general
category and rupees one hundred twenty-five for
advocates belonging to the SC and ST category.
SBCs cannot charge "enrolment fees" beyond the
express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as
it currently stands. Therefore, prescribing
enrolment fees beyond rupees seven hundred for
general candidates and rupees one hundred twenty-
five for SC and ST candidates is contrary to Section
24(1)(f).
75. The subject-matter of enrolment fee is covered
by the Advocates Act. Therefore, SBCs, being
delegated authorities, do not have any legislative
powers to prescribe enrolment fees contrary to the
statutory stipulation.
76. As discussed in the above segments of this judgment,
the legislature prescribed the enrolment fee under Section
24(1)(f) to cover "all functions" carried out by SBCs and
BCI under the Advocates Act. The legislative history
suggests that the legislature was averse to
imposing any charges other than enrolment fees at
the time of enrolment. This was in furtherance of
the legislative object to foster an inclusive Bar.
However, SBCs are imposing miscellaneous fees
and charges in the guise of an enrolment fee, which
cumulatively exceed the statutory stipulation under
Section 24(1)(f). The decision of SBCs to charge an
enrolment fee beyond the stipulated amount is
contrary to the legislative object of the Advocates
Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
77. Section 24(1)(f) is a fiscal regulatory provision
and has to be construed strictly. Parliament has
prescribed the enrolment fees in the exercise of its
sovereign legislative powers. SBCs and BCI, being
delegates of Parliament, cannot alter or modify the
fiscal policy laid down by Parliament. The delegate
can create substantive rights and obligations only
to the extent to which the parent enactment
empowers the delegate. [ See Global Energy
Ltd. v. CERC, (2009) 15 SCC 570, para 25] By
prescribing additional fees at the time of enrolment,
SBCs have created new substantive obligations not
contemplated by the provisions of the Advocates
Act. The basis for the fees imposed by SBCs has to
be traceable to the provisions of the statute. There
is no express provision in the Advocates Act
empowering 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 SBCs to charge
miscellaneous fees is contrary to the legislative
prescription of the Advocates Act.
78. On 26-6-2013, BCI passed a resolution directing SBCs
to charge rupees six thousand as enrolment fees for
general candidates and rupees three thousand for SC and
ST candidates. Importantly, the resolution stated that
SBCs could charge other fees according to "their own
suitability". On 22-12-2016, BCI addressed a letter to all
SBCs directing them to charge the revised enrolment
fees. BCI Resolution dated 26-6-2013 prompted many
SBCs such as the Odisha Bar Council to enhance their
enrolment fees. Section 24(1)(f) stipulates the enrolment
fee to be charged by SBCs.
79. In the face of the express stipulation of law, BCI had
no authority to pass a resolution revising the enrolment
fees charged by SBCs. The fact that the enrolment fee
stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) has not been revised by
the legislature does not clothe BCI with any authority to
direct SBCs to charge revised enrolment fees. Since BCI
exercises general supervision and control over all SBCs, it
is incumbent upon it to ensure that SBCs strictly follow
the mandate of the Advocates Act. The Resolution dated
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
26-6-2013 is devoid of legal authority and contrary to
Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
80. In this batch of matters, we have transferred to this
Court similar petitions pending before the Kerala High
Court. In T. Koshy v. Bar Council of Kerala [T.
Koshy v. Bar Council of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker
41055] , SBC was charging special fees for enrolment
from candidates who had retired from government
service. A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court observed
that the special fees were charged in addition to the
enrolment fees and other miscellaneous charges such as
application form fee, registration fee, enrolment
certificate fee, and verification fee. The vires of the
miscellaneous fees was not challenged before the High
Court. The High Court construed the special fee charged
by SBC as an enrolment fee and held that the amount
charged by SBC was over and above the enrolment fee
stipulated by Section 24(1)(f). In appeal, the Division
Bench [Bar Council of Kerala v. T. Koshy, 2018 SCC
OnLine Ker 23751] of the High Court upheld the judgment
[T. Koshy v. Bar Council of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker
41055] of the Single Judge by holding that Section
28(2)(d) did not empower SBC "to prescribe any fee for
enrolment, either in the form of enrolment fee or special
fee." [T. Koshy case, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 23751, para
7] The special leave petition filed by SBC was dismissed
by this Court on 4-6-2019. [Bar Council of Kerala v. N.S.
Gopakumar, SLP (C) Diary No. 44268 of 2018, order
dated 4-6-2019 (SC)]
81. In adjudicating upon WP (C) No. 3068 of 2023,
[Akshai M. Sivan v. Bar Council of Kerala, 2023 SCC
OnLine Ker 11400] another Single Judge of the Kerala
High Court relied on T. Koshy [T. Koshy v. Bar Council of
Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 41055] to observe that SBC
is only entitled to collect the enrolment fee stipulated
under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
Subsequently, the writ petition was heard by a Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court which passed [Bar Council
of Kerala v. Akshai M. Sivan, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 4242]
an interim order directing SBC to admit the petitioners on
the State roll by accepting rupees seven hundred fifty as
enrolment fees.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
82. Given the above background, two issues arise for
consideration:
82.1. (i) Whether the miscellaneous fees which are
charged in addition to the enrolment fee at the time of
enrolment can be considered as enrolment fee; and
82.2. (ii) Whether SBCs or BCI can charge miscellaneous
fees as a precondition for enrolment.
83. Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act lays down
the conditions subject to which an advocate may be
admitted on a State roll. Section 24(1)(f) provides
that the enrolment fee is paid by the advocate "in
respect of the enrolment". The use of the phrase "in
respect of the enrolment" conveys that the fee is
paid for the entire enrolment process. Under the
Advocates Act, the process of enrolment
commences when an applicant makes an
application to SBC within whose jurisdiction the
applicant proposes to practice. Thereafter, the
enrolment committee of SBC scrutinises the
application on the basis of the eligibility
qualifications laid down under Section 24(1). The
name of an applicant who is found eligible is
entered on the roll of advocates and a certificate of
enrolment is issued to the applicant by SBC. The
enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f)
comprehends the whole enrolment process.
84. On 27-12-2016, [ Communication dated 28-1-2017 by BCI to
the Secretaries of SBCs, BCI : D 529/2017(Council) dated 28-1-
2017.] BCI passed a resolution fixing the verification fees charged
by SBCs at the time of submission of enrolment forms. The
resolution was in the following terms:
"The State Bar Councils/Enrolment Committees of the State
Bar Councils shall require the xerox as well as the original
certificates of the candidates applying for enrolment. Following
certificates shall be required to be submitted along with the
enrolment forms:
(a) Certificate of Board for Secondary/10th examination
concerned.
(b) Certificate of Board for Senior Secondary or
intermediate examination concerned.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
(c) Certificate of graduation, if any or/and the LLB degree
or the provisional certificates of these Degrees granted by
the University as well as the marksheets of all the three or
five year of LLB examinations.
The office of State Bar Councils shall charge a sum of Rs
2500 for verification of the said certificates from the candidates
at the time of submission of the enrolment forms only."
85. In view of BCI resolution, many SBCs increased the
verification fees charged by them. Currently, SBCs charge
various fees such as verification fees, application fees,
registration fees, and identity card fees at the time of
enrolment. SBCs charge these fees as concomitant to the
process of enrolment. For instance, a verification fee is
charged for the verification of academic qualification
certificates of the candidates. The verification fee is collected
from the candidates "at the time of submission of enrolment
forms". These additional fees are in furtherance of the
process of enrolment of advocates and are encompassed
within the meaning of the phrase "in respect of the
enrolment" appearing in Section 24(1)(f).
86. Additionally, SBCs also collect charges such as building
fund and benevolent fund from advocates at the time of
enrolment. These charges are per se not related to the
process of enrolment, but in most cases the candidates have
no choice but to pay the levies. SBCs admit that they charge
the fees at the time of enrolment as a one-time payment for
all the services offered by them. SBCs contend that they
charge these fees at the time of enrolment because the
advocates do not pay periodic fees after enrolment.
87. Admission on the roll of advocates is a prerequisite
for any person intending to practise law in India. At
the time of enrolment, candidates have little agency
but to pay the miscellaneous fees imposed by SBCs to
get enrolled. Non-payment of the fees means that a
candidate cannot get enrolled on the State roll. Thus,
all the miscellaneous fees collected from a candidate
at the time of enrolment essentially serve as a
precondition to the process of enrolment. Section
24(1) specifically lays down the preconditions subject
to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls.
Since Section 24(1)(f) specifies the amount that can
be charged by SBCs as an enrolment fee, SBCs and BCI
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
cannot demand payment of fees other than the
stipulated enrolment fee as a precondition to
enrolment.
88. Rule 40 under Section IV-A of Chapter II of Part VI under
BCI Rules mandates every advocate borne on the rolls to pay
SBC a sum of rupees three hundred every third year. [ BCI
Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, Section IV-A, Rule 40. It
reads:"40. Every Advocate borne on the rolls of the State
Bar Council shall pay to the State Bar Council a sum of Rs
300 every third year commencing from 1-8-2001 along with
a statement of particulars as given in the form set out at the
end of these Rules, the first payment to be made on or
before 1-8-2001 or such extended time as notified by the
Bar Council of India or the concerned State Bar
Council:Provided further however that an advocate shall be
at liberty to pay in lieu of the payment of Rs [600]80a every
three years a consolidated amount of Rs 1000. This will be a
lifetime payment to be kept in the fixed deposit by the
concerned State Bar Council. Out of life time payment, 80%
of the amount will be retained by the State Bar Council in a
fixed deposit and remaining 20% has to be transferred to the
Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India and State Bar
Council have to keep the same in a fixed deposit and the
interest on the said deposits shall alone be utilised for the
Welfare of the Advocates80b.Explanation 1.--Statement of
particulars as required by Rule 40 in the form set out shall
require to be submitted only once in three years.Explanation
2.--The Advocates who are in actual practise and are not
drawing salary or not in full time service and not drawing
salary from their respective employers are only required to
pay the amount referred to in this rule.Explanation 3.--This
rule will be effective from 1-10-2006 and for period prior to
this, advocates will continue to be covered by old rule."] [
Contribution enhancement vide Resolution No. 130/2006, dt.
16-9-2006.] [ Proviso to Rule 40 amended vide Resolution
No. 66/2001, dt. 22-6-2001, w.e.f. 1-8-2001.] The sum
under Rule 40 can only be collected from advocates already
admitted on the State rolls. Therefore, this sum cannot be
collected from persons at the time of enrolment. It must be
collected from advocates after they are admitted on the
State roll."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
Pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in GAURAV KUMAR
(supra), a contempt petition comes to be filed against
respondent No.1 in KLJA KIRAN BABU v. KARNATAKA STATE
BAR COUNCIL2, preventing respondent No.1 from collecting any
fee beyond the permissible statutory limit. The order of the Apex
Court reads as follows:
"2. Petitioner has moved this Contempt petition on
the premise that the directions issued by this Court in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 352 of 2023 as regards enrolment
fee which the Bar Council of various States are entitled to
collect are not being complied with in their letter and
spirit.
3. In pursuance of the notice issued by us to the
Bar Council of India Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, the learned
counsel has appeared.
4. He has filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar
Council of India, inter-alia, stating as under:--
"I Awanish Kumar Pandey, son of Lt. Shri
Ram Ekbal Pandey, aged 55 years, occupation
Additional Secretary, Bar Council of India at Bar
Council of India, 21 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi -
110002, do hereby state as follows:--
1. That this affidavit is filed pursuant to the
order of this Hon'ble Court dated 15.07.2025,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1659
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
wherein the Hon'ble Court has sought a clarification
from the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to
as "BCI") on whether the directions issued in
paragraph 109 of the judgment dated 30.07.2024 in
W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2023 (Gaurav Kumar v. Union of
India) have been duly complied with.
2. That for the convenience of this Hon'ble
Court, it is imperative to reproduce para 109 of the
judgment dated 30.07.2024 which reads, inter alia,
as under:--
"109. In view of the above discussion, we conclude
that:
a. The SBCs cannot charge "enrolment fees" beyond the
express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it
currently stands;
b. Section 24(l)(f) specifically lays down the fiscal
preconditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled
on State rolls. The SBCs and the BCI cannot demand
payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee
and stamp duty, if any, as a pre-condition to enrolment;
c. The decision of the 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
d. This decision will have prospective effect. The SBCs are not
required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected
before the date of this judgment.
3. That subsequent upon the judgment of this Hon'ble
Court, the BCI, to ensure uniformity and compliance,
has issued a detailed communication vide letter
bearing No. BCI : D : 4088/2024 dated 06.08.2024,
addressed to the Secretaries of all State Bar
Councils, directed them to strictly proceed with the
enrolment of candidates in light of the judgment
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 352 of
2023, titled Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India."
4. That after issuance of the letter, the BCI has firmly
believed that all the State Bar Councils are adhering
and complying the judgment passed by this Hon'ble
Court in the matter of Gaurav Kumar (supra).
5. That, with utmost respect and a sense of dismay, the
Bar Council of India has received a copy of the order
dated 15.07.2025, passed in the present contempt
petition initiated by the petitioner against the
Karnataka State Bar Council, whereby this Hon'ble
Court has specifically directed Mr. Manan Kumar
Mishra, Chairman, Bar Council of India, to assist the
Court with respect to the compliance of its judgment,
particularly paragraph 109 thereof. A copy of order
dated 15.07.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in
Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 16629 of 2029 titled
d K.L.J.A Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar
Council is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE A/1 (Page No. 9 to 10).
6. That immediately upon receipt of the order dated
15.07.2025, the Bar Council of India, with prompt
action, issued a letter bearing No. BCI : D :
5397/2025 dated 23.07.2025, thereby directing all
State Bar Councils to furnish details regarding the
fee being collected or charged at the time of
enrolment, in light of the judgment dated
30.07.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C)
No. 352 of 2023, Gaurav Kumar v. Union of
India, within a period of three days. A copy of letter
bearing BCI : D : 5397/2025 dated 23.07.2025
issued by the Bar Council of India is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A/2 (Page No.
11 to 12).
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
7. That in response to the said letter dated 23.07.2025,
the State Bar Councils has duly furnished the details
that they are collecting only Rs. 750/- for General
and Rs. 125/- for SC/ST.
Fee Structure as Reported by Various State Bar
Councils:
State Bar Council General/OBC SC/ST Remarks
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Chhattisgarh, MP, Delhi, Punjab and Rs. 750 (Rs. Rs. 125 All these councils affirm
Haryana, Maharashtra & Goa, 600 SBC + Rs. (Rs. full compliance with SC
Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, 150 BCI) 100 judgment and BCI
Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, SBC + advisories. No additional
Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu and Rs. 25 fees reported.
Puducherry, Gujarat, Rajasthan, BCI)
Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra
Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha,
Uttarakhand, Bihar, Manipur,
Kerala, West Bengal, Tripura,
Karnataka
Himachal Pradesh Rs. 750 (Rs. Rs. 125 Also collects Rule-40
600 SBC + Rs. (Rs. Advocates' Welfare Fund
150 BCI) 100 fee at the time of
SBC + enrolment.
Rs. 25
BCI)
Karnataka Rs. 750 (Rs. Rs. 125 Additionally collects
600 SBC+ Rs. (Rs. optional fees totalling Rs.
150 BCI) 100 6,800 (for ID cards,
SBC + certificates, welfare fund,
Rs. 25 training, etc.)
BCI)
Jammu & Kashmir Rs. 900 (Rs. Rs. 450 The said fees has been
600 SBC + Rs. (Rs. charged by the High Court
300 BCI) 300 of Jammu and Kashmir
SBC + and Ladakh (Exercising the
150 Powers of Bar Council of
BCI) Jammu & Kashmir under
section 58 of
the Advocates Act, 1961)
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
The details of the responses furnished by the
State Bar Council is has been annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE A/3 (Page No. 13 to 47).
A copy of Letter being No. BCI D : 4088 of 2024
Dated 06.08.2024 is has been annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE A/4 (Page No. 48 to 49).
8. That the Bar Council of India, as the apex statutory
body under the Advocates Act, 1961, reiterates its
unequivocal commitment to comply with the
judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed by this Hon'ble
Court in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2023 in both letter and
spirit. The BCI has taken prompt and substantive
steps to secure adherence by all State Bar Councils,
and continues to monitor compliance through an
institutional mechanism established for that purpose.
9. That the BCI respectfully submits that it has acted
diligently, without delay, and in full faith, and that
there is no occasion for invoking the contempt
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court against it"
5. According to him, all the directions issued by
this Court vide the judgment and order dated
30th July, 2024 are being duly complied with by all
the State Bar Councils across the Country. At this
stage, the contempt petitioner pointed out that so
far as the Karnataka State Bar Council is concerned,
they are charging amounts of Rs. 6800/- and Rs.
25,000/- respectively over and above the statutory
fees.
6. In this regard, Mr. Mishra pointed out that
these are optional and not mandatory.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
7. We make it clear that there is nothing like
optional. No State Bar Council(s) or Bar Council of
India shall collect any fees of any amount as
optional. They shall strictly collect fees in
accordance with the directions issued by this Court
in the main judgment.
8. We reiterate the directions as under:
"109. In view of the above discussion, we
conclude that:
a. The SBCs cannot charge "enrolment fees"
beyond the express legal stipulation under Section
24(1)(f) as it currently stands;
b. Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the
fiscal pre-conditions subject to which an advocate can
be enrolled on State rolls. The SBCs and the BCI
cannot demand payment of fees other than the
stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a
pre-condition to enrolment;
c. The decision of the 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
d. This decision will have prospective effect.
The SBCs are not required to refund the excess
enrolment fees collected before the date of this
judgment."
9. If the Karnataka State Bar Council is collecting
any amount in the name of optional, though it may
not be mandatory, it must be stopped."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
5. The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment holds
that the charging of enrollment fee, in excess of statutory
stipulation, is impermissible in law.
6. The learned counsel Smt.Archana Magadum,
appearing for respondent No.1-Karnataka State Bar Council,
submits that the fee was collected prior to the order passed by
the Apex Court in GAURAV KUMAR (supra) and KLJA KIRAN
BABU (supra). Therefore, if the account details of the petitioner
is furnished, the fee that is in excess would be refunded, and if a
representation to that effect be submitted to the Bar Council,
action would be taken in accordance with law as submitted
hereinabove.
7. In the light of the issue standing completely
answered by the Apex Court in the judgments rendered in the
case GAURAV KUMAR (supra) and KLJA KIRAN BABU (supra),
the petitioner in-person shall now submit a representation to the
Bar Council within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy
of the order.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14930
HC-KAR
8. In the event the representation is submitted by the
petitioner within two weeks, the respondent No.1-Karnataka
State Bar Council shall act upon the same, bearing in mind the
observations made in the course of the order passed by the Apex
Court in GAURAV KUMAR (supra) and KLJA KIRAN BABU
(supra), and pass necessary orders, directing granting in
accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court, within 3
weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the
petitioner.
9. It is needless to observe that respondent No.1 -
Karnataka State Bar Council cannot and will not collect any fee
contrary to law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KGK
CT:ANB
