No State Bar Council Can Charge Enrollment Fees Beyond Statutory Limit: Supreme Court Warns of Contempt for Non-Compliance

“Withholding enrollment documents over unauthorized fee is unjustified and amounts to administrative overreach” – Supreme Court of India reiterated its earlier stand that State Bar Councils cannot demand enrollment fees beyond the statutory limit prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court expressed concern that, despite its categorical directions in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (decided on 30 July 2024), several State Bar Councils were continuing to charge excess enrollment fees and withholding documents of applicants who refused to pay such unauthorized amounts.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation and a Contempt Petition, directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to issue a written compliance circular to all State Bar Councils within four weeks, strictly instructing them to adhere to the Court’s ruling in Gaurav Kumar and warned of contempt proceedings against errant Bar Council authorities.

“We give one last opportunity to the Bar Council of India” – Supreme Court directs BCI to issue written circular to all State Bar Councils

While hearing submissions from counsel Ms. Radhika Gautam, who appeared on behalf of the Bar Council of India, the Court recorded that the BCI had orally communicated to the State Bar Councils the binding nature of the judgment in Gaurav Kumar, but despite such communication, some State Bar Councils continued to demand fees beyond the statutory limit.

The Court expressed dissatisfaction and ordered:

“We give one last opportunity to the Bar Council of India to take up the aforesaid issue very seriously with all State Bar Councils and this time it should be in the form of a written circular.”

The direction is aimed at ensuring uniformity, transparency, and accountability in the enrollment process of new advocates and puts to rest arbitrary practices by State Bar Councils in demanding additional amounts beyond the legal ceiling.

“Future violations will invite contempt” – Clear warning issued to Bar Councils across the country

The Bench made it abundantly clear that any further deviation from the Court’s previous directions would attract serious consequences. In paragraph 7 of the order, the Court unequivocally held:

“In future if it is brought to our notice that any of the State Bar Councils is charging beyond the statutory fee prescribed, we shall proceed to hold the responsible authority guilty of contempt.”

This stern message signals the Court’s intention to ensure rigorous enforcement of its binding judgment, and a decisive stand against institutional disregard of judicial orders.

“Withholding of enrollment documents is impermissible” – Original documents must be returned on request

In addition to fee-related issues, the Court also addressed another grievance raised in the PIL — that original documents of applicants were being withheld by State Bar Councils, especially when candidates refused to pay excess fees. The Supreme Court strongly deprecated this practice, declaring:

“None of the State Bar Councils shall withhold the documents produced by the concerned applicant(s) on the ground of non-payment of fees demanded. Once the amount as statutorily prescribed is paid by the applicant(s) and a request is made for return of the documents, those documents shall be immediately returned.”

The Court termed this practice of withholding documents “administrative overreach”, and clarified that such actions are without legal sanction. It held that once an applicant has paid the statutorily prescribed fee, the originals must be returned immediately upon request, and any attempt to hold them back over unauthorized demands is illegal and unjustified.

“Enrollment fee must conform to Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act” – Binding directions reaffirmed

Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 prescribes the fee payable for enrollment, and no State Bar Council has the authority to charge any amount beyond what is authorized under this provision. This issue was conclusively settled in the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 352/2023, decided on 30 July 2024.

Despite this binding ruling, the present case exposed continued non-compliance by some State Bar Councils. The Supreme Court, therefore, made it clear that the directions issued in Gaurav Kumar are binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, and all Bar Councils are obligated to implement them without exception.

The Bench directed:

“This aspect should also be highlighted by the Bar Council of India in the Circular we are asking them to issue.”

Next Steps: Four Weeks’ Time Granted for Compliance – Matter to be Listed Again

The Court granted the Bar Council of India four weeks' time to issue the compliance circular to all State Bar Councils, who are required to respond immediately upon receipt. The matter will now be listed again after four weeks for further consideration of compliance status.

Additionally, Dasti (direct service) was permitted, indicating urgency and importance.

Clear Judicial Mandate on Enrollment Practices

The Supreme Court’s latest order is a clear reaffirmation of the judicially settled position that State Bar Councils cannot impose financial or procedural barriers beyond what is prescribed under law. It underscores the need for strict compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates, and the Court’s readiness to hold Bar Councils accountable for unauthorized and oppressive practices against young lawyers.

This ruling is likely to have nationwide implications for legal education graduates and prospective advocates seeking enrollment, reinforcing their statutory right to enter the profession without arbitrary hurdles.

Date of Decision: 30 October 2025