Court’s decision
The Karnataka High Court delivered a detailed order reaffirming that State Bar Councils cannot collect any enrolment fees beyond the statutory limit prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and its subsequent contempt proceedings, holding that even so-called “optional fees” are illegal and unconstitutional. The Court noted the Supreme Court’s emphatic declaration that “there is nothing like optional” and that any amount collected at the time of enrolment, other than the statutory fee and applicable stamp duty, violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
After examining the record, including detailed fee tables reproduced in the Supreme Court’s contempt proceedings (depicted on page 15 of the judgment), the High Court held that the Karnataka State Bar Council was bound to refund any excess collected from the Petitioner. The Court directed the Petitioner to file a representation within two weeks, and directed the State Bar Council to process the refund within three weeks thereafter, strictly in line with Supreme Court mandates. The Court also reiterated that the State Bar Council “cannot and will not collect any fee contrary to law.” The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with binding directions.
Facts
The Petitioner, a recently enrolled advocate, challenged the collection of amounts exceeding the statutory enrolment fee of ₹750 under Section 24(1)(f). He asserted that the State Bar Council was collecting an additional ₹6,800 under the heading “other fees,” purportedly optional, though effectively mandatory for enrolment. The Petitioner sought a refund of the excess collected, a declaration that such charges are ultra vires, and directions to cease the practice. He also sought digitisation of the enrolment process.
The Respondent submitted that the amount was collected prior to the Supreme Court’s directions but acknowledged that if the Petitioner submitted his account details, the excess would be refunded in accordance with law. The Petitioner relied heavily on the categorical conclusions in Gaurav Kumar and the Supreme Court’s contempt order in KLJA Kiran Babu.
Issues
- Whether the State Bar Council can collect any amount beyond the statutory enrolment fee prescribed in Section 24(1)(f).
- Whether amounts collected as “optional fees” can be justified at the time of enrolment.
- Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of excess fees collected prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
- Whether the High Court should issue writs restraining future collection of such fees.
- Whether the Bar Council of India must ensure uniform nationwide compliance.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Petitioner argued that Section 24(1)(f) prescribes the enrolment fee comprehensively, covering all activities “in respect of the enrolment,” and that no State Bar Council has authority to impose any additional charges. He relied on the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that miscellaneous, verification, identity card, welfare fund, and other administrative charges cannot be collected at enrolment. He submitted that the Karnataka State Bar Council’s demand of ₹6,800 over and above ₹750 violated the fiscal mandate of the Act and the constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
The Petitioner further cited the Supreme Court’s contempt directions, highlighting the Court’s warning that “there is nothing like optional,” and argued that any fee collected under that nomenclature must be refunded. He insisted that enrolment must not hinge on compliance with extra-legal conditions, and that strict adherence to statutory limits is mandatory.
Respondent’s arguments
The Respondent contended that the additional fees were collected prior to the Supreme Court’s directions and were not mandatory. It was submitted that many fees were towards services such as ID cards, training, and welfare contributions, and were therefore optional. The Respondent asserted that the Bar Council was now complying with the Supreme Court judgment and that other State Bar Councils had also aligned their practices, as demonstrated in the nationwide fee-structure table reproduced in the Supreme Court’s contempt proceedings.
The Respondent assured that if the Petitioner submitted a representation providing account details, the excess amount collected would be refunded and necessary action would be taken consistent with the law declared by the Supreme Court.
Analysis of the law
Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act sets the enrolment fee at ₹750 for general candidates and ₹125 for SC/ST candidates. The Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar clarified that:
- this fee encompasses all functions of enrolment;
- no State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India has authority to impose miscellaneous or additional fees as a precondition to enrolment; and
- fiscal provisions must be construed strictly.
The Court examined paragraphs 72–109 of the Supreme Court judgment, which comprehensively addressed legislative intent, the limits of delegated authority, and the impermissibility of imposing obligations not contemplated by Parliament. The Court observed that services such as identity cards, welfare fund payments, and training cannot be bundled into enrolment since they do not fall within “in respect of enrolment.” The Supreme Court’s contempt order, reproduced at length, reiterated that even optional fees are unconstitutional.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied primarily on two Supreme Court precedents:
1. Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that miscellaneous fees cannot be collected, that enrolment fees must strictly conform to Section 24(1)(f), and that imposing additional fees violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
2. KLJA Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council
In contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court reiterated that no State Bar Council may collect any “optional fees,” emphasising strict enforcement of the Gaurav Kumar directions.
These precedents entirely governed the outcome of the writ petition, leaving no scope for contrary interpretation.
Court’s reasoning
The High Court observed that the issue was “completely answered” by the Supreme Court. It reiterated the explicit language used by the Supreme Court: “There is nothing like optional.” The Court noted the fee-structure chart (page 15) showing Karnataka as the only State collecting optional charges of ₹6,800. It held that in view of these findings, any fee beyond ₹750 must not be collected and any excess collected after the judgment must be refunded.
Given the Respondent’s concession, the Court directed the Petitioner to submit a representation within two weeks. The State Bar Council was directed to process the refund within three weeks thereafter. The Court concluded that the State Bar Council “cannot and will not collect any fee contrary to law.”
Conclusion
The High Court disposed of the petition with a structured mechanism ensuring refund of excess enrolment fees and strict compliance with Supreme Court directions. It reaffirmed that State Bar Councils cannot impose any fee beyond Section 24(1)(f) and held that the Petitioner is entitled to seek a refund. The judgment reinforces constitutional guarantees and strengthens accountability of statutory regulatory bodies.
Implications
This judgment has far-reaching consequences for thousands of aspirants to the legal profession. It ensures uniformity in enrolment fees nationwide and prevents State Bar Councils from creating financial barriers to entry into the profession. The ruling protects young lawyers from arbitrary and extra-statutory charges and mandates transparent, lawful governance of enrolment procedures. It also compels the Bar Council of India to enforce compliance across all States, ensuring systemic adherence to legislative mandates.
