In the case of Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India before the Supreme Court, a single judge bench of the Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud addressed a critical issue concerning the legality of the enrolment fees charged by various State Bar Councils (SBCs) at the time of admission of law graduates to the State Bar Counsil roll. The enrolment of law graduates in the State Roll is a mandatory condition for them to practice in any court of India. The petition was filed against the Union Government, Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils for charging exorbitant enrolment fees. It was argued that enrolment fees are in excess of the amount stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, delves into the statutory framework governing the enrolment of advocates, the rule-making powers of the Bar Council of India and State Bar Council and the constitutional implications of the fees charged under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Brief Background
The Advocates Act, 1961, was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to legal practitioners and establish a unified Bar Council across India. The Act constituted the SBCs and the Bar Council of India (BCI), assigning them various functions related to the admission, conduct, and discipline of advocates. Among these functions, Section 24 of the Act prescribes the qualifications and conditions for admission as an advocate on a State roll, including the payment of the enrolment fee.
Section 24(1)(f) of the Act explicitly states that the enrolment fee should not exceed ₹750 from candidates belonging to the General Category and a ₹125 for candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will be charged. However, over time, SBCs began charging additional fees under various heads, such as library funds, administration fees, identity card fees, and welfare funds, etc as part of the enrolment fees from the law graduates. These additional charges led to significant variation in the total amount payable across different states, with the cumulative enrolment fees ranging from ₹15,000 to ₹42,000 across various SBCs. It is mandatory for the candidates to pay the enrolment fees to get themselves registered in the State Roll.
The petitioner contended that these additional fees were in contravention of the statutory provisions and imposed an unjust financial burden on law graduates, particularly those from economically weaker sections. The petitioner sought a declaration that the fees charged by the SBCs violated Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act and were, therefore, unconstitutional.
Findings
The Court analyzed the statutory framework of the Advocates Act, particularly focusing on the provisions governing the enrolment of advocates. Section 24(1)(f) explicitly prescribes the enrolment fees payable to the SBCs and the Bar Council of India. The Court noted that the SBCs have the power to frame rules under Section 15 and Section 28 of the Act. It is a delegated power bestowed upon SBCs by statutory provisions under the Act. The court held that this delegated legislation cannot contravene or override the express provisions of the Act itself.
The Court further observed that the enrolment fee stipulated in Section 24(1)(f) was fixed by the legislature in 1993 and had not been revised since. While acknowledging that the fee structure may no longer be adequate to meet the financial demands of the BCI and SBCs, the Court emphasized that any changes to the statutory fee must be made by the legislature and not through the rule-making powers of the SBCs or the BCI.
The Court acknowledged the fact that the SBCs and BCI depend entirely on the amount collected from law graduates at the time of enrolment for performing their functions under the Advocate Act, but they emphasized that SBCs and BCI should devise ways and means to charge fees from enrolled advocates for rendering services rather than forcing young law graduates to pay exorbitant amounts of money as a pre-condition for enrolment.
Moreover, the Court rejected the argument that the additional fees charged by the SBCs were justified as they were linked to specific services provided at the time of enrolment. The Court held that such fees could not be made a pre-condition for enrolment, as they were not prescribed by the Advocates Act and were, therefore, beyond the mandate of the SBCs.
The Court also addressed the constitutional implications of the fees charged by the SBCs. It observed that the excessively high fees imposed by some SBCs effectively created a financial barrier for law graduates seeking to enter the legal profession, particularly those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The Court held that this violated the fundamental right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the principle of substantive equality under Article 14.
The Court observed that the enrolment fees charged by the SBCs, in excess of the amount prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, in the name of additional services, were unconstitutional and not lawful. The Court directed the SBCs to adhere strictly to the statutory fee structure laid down in the Act. Any additional fees or charges, the Court held, must be voluntary and cannot be made a mandatory pre-condition for enrolment.
The Court held that since the SBCs have been levying the enrolment fees for a considerable duration and utilizing the collected amount to carry their day-to-day functioning, the judgment will have a prospective effect.
Conclusion
The judgment represents a substantial development in the regulation of the legal profession in India. It reaffirms the principle that statutory provisions must be strictly adhered to and cannot be overridden by delegated legislation. The judgment also highlights the constitutional implications of imposing financial barriers to enter into the legal profession, particularly for individuals from economically weaker sections of the society.
By directing the SBCs to adhere to the statutory fee structure and implementing a uniform enrolment fee across the country, the Supreme Court has sought to ensure fairness, consistency, and transparency in the admission process for advocates. The judgment serves as a reminder that while professional bodies like the SBCs and the BCI have the authority to regulate the legal profession, they must do so within the confines of the law and in a manner that upholds the constitutional rights of individuals.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment in this case not only provides immediate relief to law graduates but also sets a precedent for the regulation of fees in other professional bodies. It underscores the importance of balancing the financial needs of regulatory bodies with the rights of individuals to pursue their chosen profession without undue financial hardship.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.