Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court Cracks Down on ‘Optional’ Enrolment Fees, Reaffirms Statutory Cap for Aspiring Lawyers: NEW DELHI – In a significant move to ensure affordability and accessibility to the legal profession, the Supreme Court of India has issued a stern directive to all State Bar Councils, clarifying that they cannot collect any amount as “optional fees” from aspiring lawyers during the enrolment process. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan made it unequivocally clear that the enrolment fee must strictly adhere to the statutory limits prescribed by the Advocates Act, 1961.
The ruling comes in the wake of a contempt petition filed by petitioner-in-person K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu, who argued that various Bar Councils were in defiance of a previous 2024 judgment in the case of Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India. That landmark judgment had capped the enrolment fees at a maximum of ₹750 for general category advocates and ₹125 for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes advocates, as stipulated in Section 24 of the Act.
The petitioner specifically highlighted the egregious example of the Karnataka State Bar Council, which was allegedly charging exorbitant amounts of ₹6,800 and ₹25,000, over and above the statutory fees. These additional charges were often disguised as “optional” fees for various services like welfare funds, ID cards, and training.
In response to the contempt proceedings, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Senior Advocate Manan Mishra submitted an affidavit on August 4. He stated that the BCI had, in fact, issued a communication to all State Bar Councils directing them to comply with the 2024 judgment. He also noted that a follow-up letter was sent after the contempt petition brought the Karnataka State Bar Council‘s practices to light.
However, the court’s scrutiny revealed that despite the BCI’s directives, a number of State Bar Councils, including those in Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir, were also charging more than the statutorily prescribed fees. For instance, Himachal Pradesh was collecting an Advocates Welfare Fund fee, while Jammu & Kashmir was charging ₹900 from general category applicants instead of ₹750.
The Supreme Court rejected the notion of “optional fees” outright. “We make it clear that there is nothing like optional,” the bench stated, emphasizing that any fee collected must be strictly in accordance with the law. While disposing of the contempt petition, the court delivered a final warning: “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.”
This latest ruling serves as a powerful reinforcement of the court’s earlier judgment, aiming to dismantle financial barriers that have long plagued aspiring lawyers, particularly those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The decision sends a clear message to all State Bar Councils that the legal profession is to be made accessible and that the statutory limits on enrolment fees are not merely a suggestion, but a mandatory requirement.
READ: Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Inquiry, Dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma’s Challenge
READ ORDER: KLJA KIRAN BABU Vs KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL
