Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 30 July 2024, 2 judges, 2024 INSC 558
State Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees or other fees at the time of enrolment beyond what Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act prescribes; excess charges violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The ruling operates prospectively.
Facts
Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 fixes the enrolment fee payable to the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India. At the time of enrolment, State Bar Councils also charged library fund contributions, administration fees, identity card fees, welfare funds, training fees, verification fees and similar sums, so that a law graduate paid between about Rs 15,000 and Rs 42,000 depending on the State. The petitioner, appearing in person, sought a declaration under Article 32 that these fees violate Section 24(1)(f). The Court transferred to itself similar petitions from the High Courts of Kerala, Madras (Madurai Bench) and Bombay. The Bar Council of India defended the charges as payment for services and asked the Court to use Article 142 to impose its draft uniform enrolment fee rules.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the enrolment fees charged by the State Bar Councils contravene Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
- Whether payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment.
- Whether charging fees in excess of Section 24(1)(f) at enrolment violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
What the Court held
- Section 24(1)(f) is a fiscal regulatory provision to be construed strictly. The State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India are delegates of Parliament and cannot alter the enrolment fee fixed by statute. The BCI resolution of 26 June 2013 revising enrolment fees was without legal authority.
- All fees collected at the time of enrolment, such as application, processing, verification, identity card and administrative fees, are part of the enrolment fee and cannot together exceed the amount in Section 24(1)(f). Only the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, can be a pre-condition to enrolment.
- The sum payable every third year under Rule 40 of the BCI Rules can be collected only from advocates already on the roll, not at the time of enrolment.
- Excess enrolment charges create entry barriers for persons from marginalised and economically weaker sections, offend substantive equality and are manifestly arbitrary under Article 14. Being without authority of law, they are also an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g).
- The Court declined to use Article 142 to implement the BCI draft enrolment rules. The judgment has prospective effect, so excess fees collected earlier need not be refunded. Bar Councils may charge enrolled advocates for services in accordance with the Act.
Why it matters
The judgment fixes the limit of what Bar Councils may collect from law graduates at enrolment: nothing beyond the fee and stamp duty in Section 24(1)(f), whatever the label. It applies the rules on delegated legislation (a delegate cannot widen a fiscal provision) and treats a facially neutral fee as a breach of substantive equality and Article 19(1)(g). It also shows the Court limiting a declaration to prospective effect to avoid refunds.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“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. The SBCs and the BCI, being delegates of Parliament, cannot alter or modify the fiscal policy laid down by Parliament.”
“Admission on the roll of advocates is a pre-requisite for any person intending to practice law in India. At the time of enrolment, candidates have little agency but to pay the miscellaneous fees imposed by the 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 pre-condition to the process of enrolment.”
“The excess enrolment fee imposed by the SBCs is without authority of law. Compounded with this there are no reasonable criteria behind the decision of the SBCs to charge such exorbitant amounts as enrolment fees. The SBCs cannot have unbridled powers to charge any fees given the express legislative policy under Section 24(1)(f). Imposing excessive financial burdens on young law graduates at the time of enrolment causes economic hardships, especially for those belonging to the marginalized and economically weaker sections of the society. Therefore, the current enrolment fee structure charged by the SBCs is unreasonable and infringes Article 19(1)(g).”
“It is clarified that the only charges permissible at the stage of enrolment are those stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. All other miscellaneous fees, including but not limited to, application form fees, processing fees, postal charges, police verification charges, ID card charges, administrative fees, photograph fees etc. charged from the candidates at the time of admission are to be construed as part of the enrollment fee. The fees charged under these or any similar heads cannot cumulatively exceed the enrolment fee prescribed in Section 24(1)(f).”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)“a Constitution Bench held that manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally, and/or without adequate determining principles” (page 59)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (C) No. 352 of 2023 with T.C.(C) Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of 2023 and connected transfer petitions
- Decided
- 30 July 2024
- Bench
- Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J.
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court written by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, and signed also by J B Pardiwala, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.