Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

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