The Supreme Court asked BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra to assist in checking compliance with the enrolment fee cap, saying, “We are not inclined to issue notice, but want BCI’s response to examine compliance with para 109.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court requested that Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and a Senior Advocate, assist the Court in evaluating whether the State Bar Councils have adhered to its ruling from 2024.
This ruling prohibits charging enrolment fees that exceed the statutory limit established by the Advocates Act, 1961.
A Bench consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard a contempt petition filed by KLJA Kiran Babu, who alleged that numerous State Bar Councils are still demanding unreasonable fees from new lawyers, contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India.
Also Read: Supreme Court to BCI: Do Not Interfere in Legal Education Matters
While the Court refrained from issuing a notice on the contempt petition, it requested the BCI Chairman to appear and clarify the situation.
The Bench noted in its order,
“We are not inclined to issue notice, however, we would like to know from the Bar Council of India whether the directions issued in the main judgment i.e. para 109 are being complied with in their letter and spirit or not. We request Mr. Manan Mishra, the learned counsel, who also happens to be the Chairman of the Bar Council of India to appear in this matter and assist us,”
This contempt petition was prompted by the Supreme Court’s July 30, 2024, ruling, which stated that Bar Councils cannot independently set or raise enrolment fees.
The Court specified that State Bar Councils must adhere to Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, which caps the enrolment fee at Rs.750 for general candidates and Rs.125 for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates.
Also Read: Fake Law Degrees | “Initiate Nationwide Verification Of Advocates”: BCI Orders
It also determined that additional fees imposed by State Bar Councils during enrolment, which often reach several thousand rupees, infringe upon the constitutional rights of law graduates.
The July 2024 ruling clarified that its directives would apply moving forward, and no refunds would be necessary for fees collected in excess in the past. However, it stressed that all State Bar Councils and the BCI are obligated to comply with the law strictly from now on.
Despite this, the petitioner claimed that many Bar Councils continue to disregard these directives. When the Court inquired how he was personally affected by the alleged non-compliance, the petitioner replied that any individual could approach the Court for contempt in case of a breach of its orders.
Choosing not to pursue that question further, the Bench postponed the matter and sought a direct update from the BCI.
The Court reiterated,
“We request Mr. Manan Mishra, the learned counsel, who also happens to be the Chairman of the Bar Council of India to appear in this matter and assist us,”
Earlier this year, the BCI had submitted an application to the Supreme Court regarding the Gaurav Kumar case, seeking permission to raise the enrolment fee to Rs.25,000, a request that is still under consideration.
The ongoing contempt proceedings will resume on August 4, with the BCI Chairman expected to clarify whether the Court’s directives are being followed effectively.
Case Title: KLJA Kiran Babu vs. Karnataka State Bar Council