The Supreme Court recently issued notices in the petition against non-uniform and exorbitant enrolment fees collected by the different State Bar Councils.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala sought a response from the State Bar Councils across the country and asked the petitioners to serve a copy of the petition to the Bar Council of India as well.
The court stated that “This is a significant issue. It says enrollment fees are a violation of Section 24 of the Advocates Act and that BCI should ensure exorbitant enrollment fees shouldn’t be charged.”
Therefore, the Court took particular note of the submission wherein the petitioner mentioned that there exists a striking difference in enrollment fees structure across the States citing the example of ₹42,000 in Odisha whereas ₹20,000 in Kerala and contended that this denies opportunity to Lawyers with lacking resources.
Recently, 10 law students in Kerala challenged the same in the High Court. The Court granted them an interim relief and later Bar Council of Kerala challenged the interim order directing them to enroll the law students with a statutorily prescribed nominal fee.
In its appeal against the single-judge bench Bar Council Of Kerala (BCK) order before the division bench contended that there is no statutory bar imposed on the Council from levying the requisite charges to satisfy the conditions of enrolment from the candidates.
Further, it has been argued on part of the Council that the judgment has been passed relying on Koshy T v. Bar Council of Kerala, Ernakulam, a 2017 Kerala High Court judge ruling that the Bar Council can’t charge higher fees and should restrict itself to norms of the Advocates Act but without analyzing its context.
In a matter of similar tunes before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the BCI ensured that it will take ‘necessary action’ to make amendments to the prevailing situation.
