Madhya Pradesh High Court Issues Notice on Rs. 15,000 Transfer Fee Charged by State Bar Council

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken strong exception to the practice of the State Bar Council charging Rs. 15,000 as transfer fees from an advocate who had already secured due permission from the Delhi Bar Council and the Bar Council of India to shift his enrolment to Madhya Pradesh. The Court observed that there is no statutory provision permitting such a levy and directed that the petitioner's name be entered in the enrolment register without insisting on payment of the said amount.

The case arose when advocate Rohit Pathak, originally enrolled with the Delhi Bar Council on 12 September 2023, decided to return to his hometown Jabalpur due to personal reasons. After completing the formal process and obtaining clearance from the Delhi Bar Council and the Bar Council of India, he approached the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council for enrolment. However, he was informed that his application could not be processed unless he paid Rs. 15,000 as transfer fees.

Aggrieved by this demand, he moved the High Court seeking relief.

In his petition, Pathak submitted that the demand was arbitrary and unjustified. He pointed out that under the Advocates Act, 1961, there is no requirement to pay such a hefty fee once due permission has already been obtained from the parent State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India.

He further stated that new advocates enrolling for the first time are required to pay only Rs. 675 as registration charges. In that backdrop, seeking Rs. 15,000 from a transferred advocate was unreasonable and contrary to the statutory framework.

When the matter came up for hearing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, the petitioner appeared in person. The bench questioned the authority of the State Bar Council to levy such charges in the absence of statutory sanction.

The court noted that once the Delhi Bar Council and the Bar Council of India had approved the transfer, the role of the State Bar Council was limited to making an entry in the register. For such ministerial work, no additional transfer fee could be demanded.

The bench categorically observed that “the State Bar Council cannot collect such fees simply to increase its fund. Once the entire process has been duly completed by the Delhi Bar Council and the Bar Council of India, no additional fee can be demanded merely for making an entry in the register. Even Section 18 of the Advocates Act contains no provision for such a fee.”

In light of these observations, the Court issued notices to both the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India, seeking their responses on the issue.

At the same time, the bench passed an interim direction requiring that the petitioner's name be recorded in the roll without payment of the contested transfer fee. This interim relief ensures that the petitioner’s professional practice is not hindered pending final adjudication.

The order has wider implications for advocates across the country who seek to transfer their enrolment from one State Bar Council to another. Transfers are a common requirement when advocates relocate for personal or professional reasons. By holding that State Bar Councils cannot impose arbitrary transfer fees, the High Court has emphasized the statutory scheme laid down under the Advocates Act and reiterated that no additional burden can be imposed without express legislative backing.

The matter has now been posted for further hearing on October 7, 2025, when the Court will consider the replies of the concerned Bar Councils and examine whether such demands have been raised in other instances as well.

The final decision is likely to have significant consequences for the regulation of advocates enrolment and transfer processes across jurisdictions.

Case Title: Rohit Pathak v. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and Bar Council of India

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf

Date of Order: September 11, 2025