Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

Supreme Court Questions High Enrollment Fees Charged by State Bar Councils

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Enrollment Fees Challenged in Supreme Court

In a recent plea challenging the exorbitant enrollment fees imposed by state bar councils on new lawyers, the Supreme Court of India has raised pertinent questions about the legality and fairness of such charges. The apex court, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, has directed the state bar councils to submit detailed responses and affidavits outlining the amount of money collected by them annually.

The Chief Justice expressed his concerns about the exorbitant fees and highlighted the potential adverse impact on individuals from marginalized backgrounds, such as Dalit students and those hailing from rural areas. He stressed the importance of accessibility to legal education and questioned how individuals with limited financial means would be able to afford enrollment fees reaching as high as Rs. 42,000 in Odisha and Rs. 23,000 in Jharkhand.

The court further inquired about the number of advocates enrolled each year and the annual revenue generated by state bar councils. It sought clarity on the yearly cost incurred by multiplying the number of new enrollments with the bar council fee. The Chief Justice also expressed surprise at the significant variations in enrollment fees across different states and emphasized that the fees should only cover the cost of enrollment itself, without additional charges for services like books.

The Supreme Court drew attention to Section 24(1)(e) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which prescribes the enrollment fees as Rs. 600 for State Bar Councils and Rs. 150 for the Bar Council of India. It highlighted that this statutory provision has not been amended to allow for inflationary adjustments, and any deviation from the prescribed fees would require a legislative amendment.

In response to the court's concerns, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, Manan Kumar Mishra, argued that the provision does not account for inflationary factors. However, the court firmly maintained that the statute does not provide any flexibility for charging fees higher than the prescribed amounts.

The PIL, filed by Gaurav Kumar, brought attention to the non-uniformity of enrollment fees across states, with fees ranging from Rs. 42,100 in Odisha to Rs. 20,000 in Kerala. The petitioner's case was further supported by a recent interim order from the Kerala High Court, which restricted the Kerala Bar Council from charging more than Rs. 750 as enrollment fees from certain petitioners challenging the fee structure.

The Supreme Court has granted a four-week period for state bar councils that have not yet responded to submit their replies. Failure to do so will result in the forfeiture of their right to reply, and the petition will proceed without further input from those councils.

 

Latest Legal News