GAURAV KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA, 2024
Case Title and Citation: Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India 2024 INSC 558 (30 July 2024)
Factual Background
The Advocates Act, 1961, governs the admission of law graduates onto the state rolls, which is a necessary prerequisite for practicing law in India. Section 24(1)(f) of the Act establishes specific, low enrolment fees: six hundred rupees payable to the State Bar Council (SBC) and one hundred fifty rupees to the Bar Council of India (BCI) for general candidates. The petitioner challenged the widespread practice among SBCs of charging significantly higher cumulative fees, sometimes ranging from Rupees fifteen thousand to Rupees forty-two thousand, as a mandatory condition for enrolment. The SBCs defended these extra charges—labeled as library, welfare, processing, and identity card fees—as essential to cover their statutory functions, administrative expenses, and welfare schemes, arguing that the statutory fee fixed in 1993 was financially inadequate.
Issue(s)
- Whether State Bar Councils (SBCs) have the authority to charge enrolment fees that exceed the specific amount stipulated in Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
- Whether the mandatory payment of miscellaneous fees, other than the prescribed enrolment fee, can be imposed as a prerequisite for a law graduate’s admission onto the state advocate rolls.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that SBCs cannot levy enrolment fees beyond the amount expressly mandated by Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. The Court ruled that SBCs and the BCI are prohibited from demanding payment of additional miscellaneous fees—besides the statutory enrolment fee and stamp duty—as a pre-condition for granting enrolment. The judgment was declared to have prospective effect, relieving SBCs of any obligation to refund excess fees collected prior to the date of the decision.
Reason for the Decision
- Lack of Statutory Authority (Ultra Vires): The power of a delegated authority, such as the SBCs or BCI, to levy fees must be specifically provided by law and cannot be implied. Since the Advocates Act is a comprehensive code establishing a specific fiscal provision for enrolment fees in Section 24(1)(f), the SBCs lack the legislative power to unilaterally alter or exceed that ceiling. Any attempt by the SBCs or the BCI (through resolutions like the 2013 revision) to charge fees outside this stipulation is deemed to be without authority of law.
- “Enrolment Fee” Interpretation: The Court held that the phrase “in respect of the enrolment” in Section 24(1)(f) means the prescribed fee encompasses the entire enrolment process. Consequently, all additional charges imposed at the time of admission, regardless of their nomenclature (e.g., verification fees, library contributions, ID card fees), are constructively considered part of the enrolment fee and must not cause the cumulative amount to exceed the statutory limit.
- Violation of Fundamental Rights:
- Article 14 (Right to Equality and Arbitrariness): Charging exorbitant and varied fees, although facially neutral, disproportionately burdens law graduates from marginalized and economically weaker sections of society, thus perpetuating structural discrimination. Because the excessive fees are levied without legal authority and contravene the legislative policy (which aims for an inclusive Bar), the fee structure is manifestly arbitrary.
- Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Profession): The right to practice law is a fundamental right. An impost, such as a fee, levied without valid authority of law is inherently considered an unreasonable restriction on a citizen’s right to carry on their profession. The imposition of significant financial hurdles as a pre-condition for enrolment thus infringes upon the right protected under Article 19(1)(g).
Conclusion
The Supreme Court mandated that State Bar Councils must strictly comply with the specific and limited enrolment fees prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. It confirmed that demanding any additional fees or charges as a condition for enrolment is illegal, unconstitutional, and defeats the legislative goal of creating an inclusive Bar. The judgment, however, operates prospectively, ensuring that SBCs do not have to refund fees previously collected.
