The Supreme Court reiterated its earlier ruling prohibiting State Bar Councils from charging any enrolment fees beyond those prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and held that even so-called “optional” fees are impermissible. The matter arose from a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Court’s 2024 directions on the enrolment fee structure. The Court observed that “there is nothing like optional ” and directed that only the statutory enrolment fee and applicable stamp duty may be collected.
The petitioner approached the Court through a contempt petition claiming that its previous judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, which restricted enrolment fees to statutory limits, was not being followed. It was alleged that certain State Bar Councils, particularly Karnataka, were charging amounts far in excess of the prescribed Rs. 750 for General/OBC and Rs. 125 for SC/ST categories.
Appearing for the Bar Council of India (BCI), Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra submitted an affidavit stating that the BCI had promptly issued directives to all State Bar Councils after the 2024 judgment to ensure compliance. He maintained that all Councils had reported adherence to the prescribed fee limits, though in Karnataka certain higher charges were collected under the head of “optional fees” for services such as ID cards, training, and welfare funds.
The Court took note of its earlier conclusion in paragraph 109 of the 2024 judgment, which had declared that State Bar Councils cannot charge any enrolment fees beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f), and that any excess fee demand violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Bench made it unequivocally clear, “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".
The Court directed that if the Karnataka State Bar Council, or any other Council, is collecting any amount under the guise of “optional” fees, it must cease immediately. With these observations, the contempt petition was closed, while reiterating the binding nature of the 2024 directions on all State Bar Councils.
Picture Source :
