Miscellaneous Fees by State Bar Councils are ‘Enrolment Fees’, says Supreme Court [Read Judgement]

Advocate Enrollment Fees not to exceed Rs. 750 for General and Rs. 125 for SC/ST Categories, said the Supreme Court
Supreme Court - Enrolment Fees - State Bar Council - Miscellaneous Fees - Miscellaneous Fees by State Bar Councils - taxscan

The Supreme Court has clarified its stance on State Bar enrolment fees, ruling that any funds collected from lawyers as a prerequisite to enrolment must strictly adhere to the definition of ‘enrolment fee’.

In the recent decision, the bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasised that fees collected under various names such as verification fee, building fund, or benevolent fund, which are collected at the time of enrolment, should all be considered as part of the enrolment fee.

The Court pointed out that Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act specifies the conditions under which advocates can be enrolled on State rolls, explicitly mentioning the permissible amount for enrolment fees.

Therefore, any additional charges beyond this specified fee, including application form fees, processing fees, and others, should not cumulatively exceed the enrollment fee laid down in Section 24(1)(f).

Acknowledging the financial needs of State Bar Councils ( SBCs ) and the Bar Council of India ( BCI ), which rely on these fees for their operational costs, the Court criticised the imposition of high fees on young law graduates seeking enrolment. It urged the SBCs and BCI to explore fairer methods of fee collection from practising advocates rather than burdening new entrants into the legal profession.

Additionally, the Apex Court highlighted the Advocates Welfare Fund Act 2001 as a more equitable source of revenue, suggesting that mandatory welfare stamps on vakalatnama could effectively fund advocate welfare without imposing hefty enrolment fees. It underscored that compliance with Section 24(1)(f) must not be circumvented through indirect means, directing SBCs to strictly adhere to the prescribed fee limits.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that its decision applies prospectively and does not necessitate the refund of previously collected enrolment fees. It affirmed that SBCs must continue to contribute to the Advocates Welfare Fund Act as mandated, ensuring ongoing support for advocate welfare.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader