2024 (8) TMI 2 - SC - Indian Laws

State Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees exceeding Section 24(1)(f) limits under Advocates Act 1961

Gaurav Kumar Versus Union of India and Ors.

SC held that State Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees exceeding amounts prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of Advocates Act 1961. All miscellaneous ... Challenge to the validity of the enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils - grievance is that the fees charged by the SBCs at the time of admission of persons on State rolls are more than the enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act 1961 - payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment or not. HELD THAT:- The SBCs and the BCI depend entirely on the amount collected from candidates at the time of enrolment for performing their functions under the Advocates Act, including payment of salaries to their staff. According to the legislative scheme of the Advocates Act, the Bar Councils must only charge the amount stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) as an enrolment fee. Instead of devising ways and means to charge fees from enrolled advocates for rendering services, the SBCs and the BCI have been forcing young law graduates to cough up exorbitant amounts of money as a pre-condition for enrolment. Once the advocates are enrolled on the State rolls, the Bar Councils can charge fees for the services provided to the advocates in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act. It is for the SBCs and the BCI to devise an appropriate method of charging fees that is fair and just not only for the law graduates intending to enroll, but also for the advocates already enrolled on the State rolls. There are several reasonable ways by which the SBCs and BCI can and already do collect funds at later stages of an advocate’s career. Payment of Other Miscellaneous Fees as a Pre-condition for Enrolment - HELD THAT:- It is clarified that the only charges permissible at the stage of enrolment are those stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. All other miscellaneous fees, including but not limited to, application form fees, processing fees, postal charges, police verification charges, ID card charges, administrative fees, photograph fees etc. charged from the candidates at the time of admission are to be construed as part of the enrollment fee. The fees charged under these or any similar heads cannot cumulatively exceed the enrolment fee prescribed in Section 24(1)(f). The SBCs and the BCI are directed to ensure that the fees charged at the time of enrollment comply with Section 24(1)(f) and the provision is not defeated either directly or indirectly under the garb of different nomenclatures. The SBCs cannot charge an enrolment fee or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed in Section 24(1)(f). No case is made out for this Court to exercise its power under Article 142 to implement the BCI Draft Enrolment Rules in their current form. Prospective effect of this judgement - HELD THAT:- The result of this decision would have entitled advocates who have paid the excess enrolment fee to a refund from the SBCs The SBCs have been levying the enrolment fees for a considerable duration and utilizing the collected amounts to carry out their day-to-day functioning. Therefore, it is declared that this judgment will have prospective effect. Resultantly, the SBCs are not required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected before the date of this judgment. The writ petition, transferred cases and transfer petitions are disposed of. Issues Involved:1. Whether the enrolment fees charged by the SBCs are in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.2. Whether payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment.Detailed Analysis:1. Enrolment Fees Charged by SBCs in Contravention of Section 24(1)(f):The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the validity of the enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils (SBCs) under Article 32 of the Constitution. The grievance was that the fees charged by the SBCs at the time of admission of persons on State rolls exceed the enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act 1961. The Advocates Act was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and constitute a common Bar for the whole country. Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act prescribes an enrolment fee of Rupees six hundred payable to the SBC and Rupees one hundred to the Bar Council of India (BCI), with reduced fees for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.The SBCs charge various additional fees in addition to the enrolment fees, such as library fund contributions, administration fees, identity card fees, welfare funds, training fees, processing fees, certificate fees, etc., resulting in cumulative fees ranging from Rupees fifteen thousand to Rupees forty-two thousand. The petitioner sought a declaration that these fees violate Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. The Court observed that the SBCs cannot charge enrolment fees beyond the express stipulation of Section 24(1)(f).2. Payment of Other Miscellaneous Fees as a Pre-condition for Enrolment:The Court examined whether miscellaneous fees charged by the SBCs can be made a pre-condition for enrolment. Section 24(1)(f) provides that the enrolment fee is paid 'in respect of the enrolment,' which comprehends the entire enrolment process. The SBCs charge various fees such as verification fees, application fees, registration fees, and identity card fees at the time of enrolment, which are concomitant to the enrolment process. However, the SBCs also collect charges such as building fund and benevolent fund, which are not related to the enrolment process but are imposed as a pre-condition for enrolment.The Court held that all fees charged at the time of enrolment are 'enrolment fees' and cannot exceed the amount prescribed in Section 24(1)(f). The SBCs cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee as a pre-condition for enrolment. The imposition of additional fees as a pre-condition for enrolment violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.Conclusion:The Court concluded that:a. The SBCs cannot charge enrolment fees beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands.b. Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the fiscal pre-conditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls. The SBCs and the BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a pre-condition to enrolment.c. The decision of the SBCs to charge fees and charges at the time of enrolment in excess of the legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.d. This decision will have prospective effect, and the SBCs are not required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected before the date of this judgment.