Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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