Is Enrolment Fee Cap Order Being Followed?: Supreme Court Seeks BCI's Reply

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan took up a contempt petition filed by a litigant in person, who alleged that despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 352 of 2023, the Bar Council of India and various State Bar Councils continue to flout the Court’s directions.

In the judgment, the Court had made it clear that:

1. State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge any amount over and above what is prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act for enrolment.

2. Only the enrolment fee and applicable stamp duty, if any, may be collected.

3. Imposing any additional charges violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

4. The judgment will apply prospectively, and no refund is required for excess fees collected before its date.

However, during the contempt hearing, the Court questioned the standing of the petitioner.

It noted that he was not a directly aggrieved party and observed, “Indisputably, he is not one of the aggrieved persons. However, according to him any person can move a contempt petition in public interest. We do not want to get into this debate.”

While declining to issue notice for now, the Court asked for a clear response from the BCI on whether the directions issued in paragraph 109 of the judgment are being implemented. "For the present, we are not inclined to issue notice, however, we would like to know from the Bar Council of India whether the directions issued in the main judgment i.e. para 109 are being complied with in their letter and spirit or not," the Court said. 

The Court requested BCI Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra to appear in the matter and assist the Bench. The Bench also directed the registry to provide him with the full set of pleadings.

The matter will now be heard on August 4.