The Supreme Court heard a petition filed by an advocate appearing in propria persona, challenging the financial obligations imposed by the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
The petitioner contended that the Bar Council of India (BCI) levies an AIBE fee of Rs. 3,500, which, he argued, is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024).
In that case, a 3-judge bench led by former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ruled that enrolment fees for advocates cannot exceed Rs. 750 for general category candidates and Rs. 125 for those from SC/ST categories, as stipulated under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The petitioner asserted that the current fee structure violates this statutory limit and imposes an undue financial burden on aspiring lawyers.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, after a preliminary review, instructed the petitioner to first submit a formal representation to the BCI.
The court clarified that if the BCI fails to provide a response within a reasonable timeframe, or issues a negative response, the petitioner may seek further judicial intervention.
During the proceedings, Justice Pardiwala emphasized the financial sustainability of the BCI, stating, “You want the Bar Council to survive or not? We have otherwise also chopped off their both upper limbs and lower limbs. You are referring to my judgment? Now, they are also to survive. They have a staff to maintain. They have to recover something. Once you pay this amount of Rs. 3,500, you will start earning 3,50,000. What is the problem in initially paying Rs. 3,500 to BCI?”
Additionally, Justice Pardiwala questioned the appropriateness of invoking Article 32 for this matter, suggesting that a High Court would have been a more suitable forum.
The petitioner, however, maintained that the issue directly affects fundamental rights by restricting the ability of young advocates to enter the profession.
Accordingly, the Court issued the following directive, “This petition, filed in the public interest, pertains to the fees imposed for the All India Bar Examination. The petitioner, a practicing advocate appearing in person, referred to the ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and argued that the imposition of Rs. 3,500 plus additional charges as a prerequisite for appearing in the AIBE contravenes Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner should first raise this issue with the Bar Council of India. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a formal representation and await the BCI’s response. If no response is received within a reasonable period, or if the response is unsatisfactory, the petitioner may approach this Court again.”
This case highlights the ongoing debate over the financial accessibility of legal practice in India, reflecting the broader tension between ensuring regulatory bodies’ financial viability and adhering to judicially established statutory limitations.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
