A view of the Supreme Court.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the Bar Council of India and state bar councils cannot charge exorbitant and excessive fees for enrolment of advocates, as it was unreasonable, and arbitrary and infringed upon the fundamental right to profession under the Constitution.
The court said the regulatory body cannot charge more than Rs 750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs 125 for advocates of SC/ST categories for their enrolment, contrary to what has been fixed by Parliament as it created hurdles and acted as barrier into the entry of legal profession, particularly for the marginalised sections of the society.
A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said it has already been held that the right to practice law is not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
"The right to pursue a profession is integral to the dignity of an individual. Charging exorbitant enrolment and miscellaneous fees as a precondition for enrolment creates a barrier to entry into the legal profession,” the bench said.
The court held the state bar councils cannot charge enrolment or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed since it would be against the principle of substantive equality and suffered from vice of manifest arbitrariness.
The court delivered its judgment on a batch of petitions filed by Gaurav Kumar and others challenging the exorbitant enrolment fees being charged by different state bar councils.
The court, however, clarified this judgment will have a prospective effect.
"The state bar councils are not required to refund the excess enrolment fee collected,” it said.
In the verdict, the court made it categorically clear that bar councils cannot charge enrolment fees beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
“The state bar councils and the BCI cannot demand fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee…dignity is crucial to substantive equality. The dignity of the individual encompasses the right of the individual to develop their potential to the fullest," the bench said.
The bench pointed out that since the Parliament has specified the enrolment fee, the bar councils cannot violate it.
The court also said the BCI, the apex regulatory body for legal profession, and state bar councils can levy additional charges for the welfare and development work but cannot charge more than the fee stipulated under the Advocates Act.
The court also said that some state bar councils were charging as much as Rs 40,000 to enrol an advocate, which would lead to denial of opportunity to those lawyers who belong to poor, backward and marginalised sections of the population.
The court noted the SBCs charged enrolment and various “fees” and “charges” in addition, in the form of library fund contributions, administration fees, identity card fees, welfare funds, training fees, processing fees, certificate fees, etc.
The court noted structure of the Indian legal setup is such that the struggle for getting acceptance in chambers and law firms is greater for those who belong to the marginalised sections, first-generation advocates, or law graduates without a degree from a National Law University.
As per a recent report, many law students from the Dalit community faced English language barriers, reducing their opportunities of practicing before the High Courts and the Supreme Court where the court proceedings are in English, it said.
"In a legal system that is predisposed against the marginalised, the pre-condition of paying exorbitant fees in the name of enrolment fee creates a further barrier for many," the bench said.
The levy of exorbitant fees effectively perpetuated systemic discrimination against persons from marginalised and economically weaker sections by undermining their equal participation in the legal profession, it said.
"The SBCs cannot have unbridled powers to charge any fees given the express legislative policy. Imposing excessive financial burdens on young law graduates at the time of enrolment causes economic hardships, especially for those belonging to the marginalised and economically weaker sections of the society," the bench said.