CJI Led Bench said that individuals from marginalised sections, first-generation lawyers and law graduates without a degree from a National Law University (NLU) face greater challenges in gaining acceptance in senior lawyers’ chambers and law firms.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday acknowledged the substantial challenges faced by individuals from marginalized sections, first-generation lawyers, and law graduates without a degree from a National Law University (NLU) in gaining acceptance in senior lawyers’ chambers and law firms.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, while ruling that enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India (BCI) for the enrolment of lawyers cannot exceed the limit prescribed by the Advocates Act, observed that-
“the structure of the Indian legal setup is such that the struggle for getting acceptance in chambers and law firms is greater for those who belong to the marginalized sections, first-generation advocates, or law graduates without a degree from a National Law University.”
The court noted that lawyers who start practicing soon after graduation earn anywhere between Rs 10,000 and Rs 50,000 per month, depending on their location and the chambers they join.
“A recent report suggests that many law students from the Dalit community face English language barriers, reducing their opportunities of practicing before the High Courts and the Supreme Court where the court proceedings are in English,”
-the Court highlighted.
The Court further observed that in a legal system predisposed against the marginalized, the pre-condition of paying exorbitant fees in the name of the enrolment fee creates an additional barrier for many. It emphasized that
“social capital and networks play an important role in the Indian legal setup in advancing legal careers, most litigation chambers hire advocates through networks and community linkages.”
The bench remarked,
“The structure of the Indian legal system is such that social capital and networks also play an important role in getting clients. The lack of social capital and network is acutely felt by advocates from marginalized communities. The marginalized sections of our society face insurmountable obstacles in navigating the Indian legal system.”
The Court stressed the need for greater representation of marginalized communities in the legal profession to enhance diversity in the legal field. This, it argued, would enable the marginalized sections to trust the legal system and facilitate the delivery of legal aid and services to unrepresented communities.
Referring to Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, which prescribes Rs 750 as the enrolment fee for general category candidates and Rs 125 for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribe candidates, the Court pointed out that in practice, SC and ST candidates often pay as much as general category candidates because various State Bar Councils charge beyond the statutory limit.
“The present enrolment fee structure reinforces the socio-economic marginalization of the SCs and STs. For instance, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa charges a cumulative fee of Rupees fifteen thousand from the general candidates and Rupees fourteen thousand five hundred from SC and ST candidates. Similarly, in Manipur, the general category candidates pay Rupees sixteen thousand six hundred fifty as an enrolment fee while a candidate from the SC and ST category pays Rupees sixteen thousand fifty,”
–it noted.
Consequently, the Court directed the BCI and State Bar Councils to ensure that enrolment fees are brought within the scope of the limit set by the Act.
It concluded that exorbitant enrolment fees and miscellaneous fees as a pre-condition create a barrier to entry into the legal profession and undermine the dignity of those facing social and economic barriers, perpetuating systemic discrimination against persons from marginalized and economically weaker sections by undermining their equal participation in the legal profession.
“The current enrolment fee structure is manifestly arbitrary because it denies substantive equality,”
–the Court held.
The Supreme Court also affirmed that the right to practice law is a fundamental right, noting that Section 30 of the Advocates Act allows lawyers whose names are entered in the State roll to practice throughout India. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution provides that all citizens of India have the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
“Thus, the right to practice law is not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(g). However, the right of citizens to practice law can be regulated and is not absolute. Under the Advocates Act, only those advocates who are admitted on the State roll have a right to practice throughout the territory of India,”
-the top court said.
In this context, the Court asserted that exorbitant enrolment fees infringe the fundamental right, particularly of those belonging to marginalized sections.
“Imposing excessive financial burdens on young law graduates at the time of enrolment causes economic hardships, especially for those belonging to the marginalized and economically weaker sections of the society. Therefore, the current enrolment fee structure charged by the SBCs is unreasonable and infringes Article 19(1)(g).”
The judgment addressed high enrolment fees set by various State Bar Councils, including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh.
CASE TITLE:
Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
