Supreme Court Demands Explanation from UP Bar Council Over ₹2,500 Oral Interview Fee for Advocate Enrollment [Read Order]
The petitioner, Priyadarshini Saha, alleged that this practice was devised to circumvent the Court’s earlier judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, which had struck down similar enrolment‑stage screening mechanisms.
The Supreme Court in a recent case issued notice to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (BCUP) after being informed that the State Bar Council had allegedly introduced an oral‑interview mechanism for candidates seeking enrolment as advocates and was charging ₹2,500 per candidate for appearing in such interviews.
The development arose during the hearing of a Writ Petition filed by petitioner Priyadarshini Saha, who alleged that the practice was a deliberate attempt to bypass the Supreme Court’s binding directions in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024).
Know the complete aspects of tax implications of succession, Click here
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Prasanna B. Varale described the allegations as “very shocking” and sought a detailed explanation from the UP Bar Council. The Court noted that in Gaurav Kumar, it had categorically held that State Bar Councils cannot impose additional screening mechanisms, such as interviews, viva voce, or personality assessments, at the enrolment stage, as the Advocates Act does not permit such procedures.
Also, in the case, it was ruled that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge enrolment fees beyond the limits set by the Advocates Act, 1961, and cannot impose additional, arbitrary charges as prerequisites for enrolling as an advocate, ensuring fairer, constitutional access to the legal profession.
The Court struck down excessive fees, calling them violations of fundamental rights (Articles 14 & 19), and directed prospective application, meaning no refunds for past fees, but preventing future overcharging.
The petitioner argued that the UP Bar Council’s newly introduced oral‑interview system, coupled with a mandatory ₹2,500 fee, amounted to a direct violation of the Court’s judgment and created an arbitrary financial barrier for law graduates.
Taking cognizance of the allegations, the Court issued notice returnable on 7 January 2026 and directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to “look into the matter and take up the issue with the Bar Council of U.P.”
The Bench also recorded that counsel for the UP Bar Council had accepted notice and waived formal service. The Court made it clear that it expects a full affidavit from the State Bar Council explaining the legal basis, purpose, and fee structure of the alleged interview process.
The matter will now be taken up in January 2026, with the Supreme Court poised to examine whether the UP Bar Council’s actions constitute a breach of its earlier directions and whether disciplinary or contempt action is warranted.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
