The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the ₹3,500 examination fee for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), emphasizing the necessity for Bar Councils to sustain themselves financially. The bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, advised the petitioner to approach the Bar Council of India (BCI) first before seeking judicial intervention.
The petitioner, Advocate Sanyam Gandhi, contended that the fee violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and contravenes the Supreme Court's ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024), which capped enrolment fees for lawyers. However, the bench did not find merit in the argument and pointed out the practical need for funding legal institutions.
"You want the Bar Councils to survive or not? We have already chopped off the upper and lower limbs. They also have staff to pay. Once you pay ₹3,500, you will start earning ₹3,50,000 also," remarked Justice Pardiwala, stressing the financial sustainability of the BCI and State Bar Councils.
The Court further noted that any grievances regarding the AIBE fee should first be raised with the Bar Council of India. "We are of the view that the petitioner should highlight to the BCI that this charge is contrary to the judgment rendered by this court," the bench stated.
If the BCI fails to respond within a reasonable time or rejects the plea, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court again. "Even if there is a negative reply by BCI, he may come back," the bench clarified.
The Court referred to its previous ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024), which set a limit on enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils, ensuring they do not exceed the prescribed limit under the Advocates Act, 1961. However, it made it clear that no such restriction was imposed on the examination fee for AIBE.
During the hearing, the petitioner asserted that the imposition of a ₹3,500 fee was a barrier for young advocates entering the profession and amounted to a violation of their fundamental rights. The Court, however, questioned why the matter was directly brought before it under Article 32, instead of being raised before a High Court.
"You should have gone to some High Court," remarked Justice Pardiwala, indicating that such matters should first be resolved at the appropriate forum before being escalated to the Supreme Court.
Picture Source :
