SUPREME COURT RULES BAR COUNCILS CANNOT CHARGE “OPTIONAL FEES” FOR LAWYER ENROLMENT:

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and all State Bar Councils are prohibited from collecting any enrolment fees beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and that no amount can be charged as an “optional fee.”

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing a contempt petition filed by petitioner-in-person K.L.J.A. Kiran Babu, who alleged that certain State Bar Councils were continuing to charge amounts far in excess of the statutory limit, in violation of the Court’s 2024 judgment in *Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India*. In that judgment, the Court had categorically held that enrolment fees for advocates could not exceed Rs. 750 for those belonging to the general category and Rs. 125 for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, as stipulated under Section 24 of the Act.

The petitioner submitted that despite these directions, the Karnataka State Bar Council was charging Rs. 6,800 and Rs. 25,000, respectively, in addition to the statutory fee. He argued that such practices amounted to contempt of court.

Earlier, the Court had directed the BCI Chairman, Senior Advocate Manan Mishra, to file an affidavit clarifying the position. On August 4, Mishra informed the Court that following the 2024 judgment, the BCI had issued detailed communications to the secretaries of all State Bar Councils instructing them to strictly comply with the Court’s directions and collect only the statutory enrolment fee. Mishra further stated that when the contempt proceedings revealed that Karnataka was collecting exorbitant additional amounts, the BCI sought details from all State Bar Councils regarding their fee structures.

According to Mishra’s affidavit, most State Bar Councils responded that they had been collecting fees strictly in accordance with the 2024 judgment. However, it emerged that some Councils—including those in Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, and Jammu & Kashmir—were still imposing charges exceeding the statutory limit. For example, Himachal Pradesh was collecting an additional Advocates Welfare Fund fee, while the Jammu & Kashmir State Bar Council was charging Rs. 900 from general category advocates instead of Rs. 750, and Rs. 450 from SC/ST candidates instead of Rs. 125.

The Supreme Court made it clear that there is no concept of an “optional fee” in the statutory framework. It directed that no State Bar Council or the BCI is permitted to collect any amount beyond the statutory enrolment fee, regardless of whether it is labelled optional or mandatory. The bench stressed that fees must be collected strictly in line with the main judgment and the provisions of Section 24.

Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court directed that if the Karnataka State Bar Council or any other State Bar Council—is collecting any amount in the name of an optional fee, the practice must cease immediately. It also underscored that similar unlawful charges imposed by other Councils must be discontinued to ensure uniform compliance across the country.

This ruling reinforces the Court’s earlier position that the statutory fee limit under the Advocates Act is absolute and binding, and that deviations, whether justified as welfare contributions or otherwise cannot be sustained.