The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that under Section 18 of the Advocates Act, transfers of advocates between State Bar Councils must be done “without the payment of any fee.” It directed MP Bar Council to register an advocate’s name without charging Rs 15,000.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has recently given an important interim order in a case relating to the transfer of an advocate’s enrollment from one State Bar Council to another.
The Court has directed the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh to immediately register an advocate on its roll without asking for any fee, after observing that the Advocates Act, 1961 clearly provides that such transfers should be done “without the payment of any fee.”
ALSO READ: FIR Against Congress Bihar Unit Over AI Deepfake Video of PM Modi and His Late Mother
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Rohit Pathak.
He had challenged the demand made by the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council, which had asked him to pay Rs 15,000 as a condition for registering his name, even though the Bar Council of India had already approved his transfer.
Mr. Pathak was earlier enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi. Later, for personal reasons, he shifted his practice to Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. He then applied to transfer his enrollment from Delhi to Madhya Pradesh.
According to him, both the Delhi Bar Council and the Bar Council of India had demanded fees, which he had already paid. After this, on 5 July 2025, the Bar Council of India allowed his transfer application (No. 154/2025).
The approval was subject to one condition — that Mr. Pathak must first surrender his original enrollment certificate to the Bar Council of Delhi for endorsement confirming the transfer.
Mr. Pathak complied with this requirement and submitted his certificate to the Delhi Bar Council on 18 July 2025. The Delhi Council endorsed the transfer and forwarded the endorsed certificate to the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council.
However, instead of registering his name, the Madhya Pradesh Bar Council demanded another fee of Rs 15,000. Arguing in person before the Court, Mr. Pathak called this an “exorbitant demand of Rs. 15,000/-” and relied on Section 18 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ALSO READ: From High Courts to Apex Court: Supreme Court Judges’ Parent High Courts Explained
The section, in its relevant part, states:
“18. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 17, any person whose name is entered as an advocate on the roll of any State Bar Council may make an application in the prescribed form to the Bar Council of India for the transfer of his name… and, on receipt of any such application the Bar Council of India shall direct that the name of such person shall, without the payment of any fee, be removed from the roll of the”
He argued that the Madhya Pradesh Bar Council’s demand was directly against this statutory rule.
The High Court examined Section 18 and made its position clear.
The Bench observed:
“Perusal of Section 18 shows that for transfer of name from one State roll to another, the transfer has to be effected without payment of any fee.”
The Court further pointed out that the Bar Council of India had already passed the transfer order and that Mr. Pathak had also fulfilled the necessary requirement of endorsement by the Delhi Bar Council. Yet, the Court noted:
“the name of petitioner has yet not been registered.”
Seeing that there was a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, the High Court issued notice to the Bar Council of India (Respondent No. 1) and the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent No. 2).
The notices were accepted by their respective counsels. At the same time, the Court decided not to issue notice to the Bar Council of Delhi (Respondent No. 3) since it remarked that the Delhi Bar Council had “no role” left in the matter.
During the hearing, counsel for the Madhya Pradesh Bar Council asked for more time to seek instructions. The Court, however, thought it necessary to protect the petitioner in the meantime and passed an interim direction.
The Bench stated:
“In the meantime, the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh is directed to register the name of petitioner in its roll subject to further orders, without charging any fee at this stage.”
The matter will now come up for hearing again on 7 October 2025.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Custodial Deaths
