The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council after allegations surfaced that it charges Rs 2,500 for “oral interviews” before enrolling new advocates. The Court said the practice appears to violate its ruling that no Bar Council can collect fees beyond the statutory limit.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India recently showed strong concern after being told that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is charging law graduates Rs 2,500 for taking “oral interviews” before allowing them to enrol as advocates.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and PB Varale said the allegation was extremely worrying because the Court had already ruled last year that no State Bar Council can collect any amount beyond what is allowed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
While hearing the matter, the Bench observed that the petitioner had pointed out something serious. The Court noted:
“The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought something very shocking to our notice. According to the petitioner, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has evolved a unique method to overcome the directions issued by this Court in the main Judgment rendered in the case of “Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.” (Writ Petition(Civil) No.352/2023 decided on 30-7-2024) by conducting oral interviews of the candidates seeking enrollment. For the purpose of appearing in the oral interviews, they are charging ₹2500 from each candidate.”
The issue was raised by advocate Priyadarshini Saha. She informed the Court that even after the Supreme Court’s July 2024 judgment in Gaurav Kumar v Union of India, which fixed the maximum enrolment fee at Rs 750 for general category and Rs 125 for SC/ST candidates, the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council had found a way around the rule by starting “oral interviews” and charging money for them.
This meant that although the Bar Council could no longer collect higher enrolment fees, it was now collecting the same money under a new head, which the petitioner claimed was a clear attempt to bypass the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling.
Justice Pardiwala, while explaining the seriousness of the complaint, pointed out that the allegations suggested an attempt to defeat the spirit of the Court’s 2024 decision.
The Bench was told that this new practice went directly against the Court’s directions, which had strictly prohibited any additional or “miscellaneous” charges.
Taking the matter seriously, the Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to give a proper explanation. It directed the Council to file an affidavit before the next hearing.
Along with this, the Court also directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to examine the issue. It said that the BCI, led by Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, must look into the complaint and discuss it with the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council.
The Bench passed the order stating that:
“In the meantime, we direct the Bar Council of India to look into this matter and take up the issue with the Bar Council of UP.”
The BCI has been asked to file its report by the next hearing. The case is scheduled to come up again on January 7, 2026.
This entire controversy is part of the ongoing fallout of the Supreme Court’s landmark Gaurav Kumar judgment. In that ruling, the Court had made it absolutely clear that Bar Councils cannot charge anything more than the statutory enrolment fee and stamp duty.
It had further stated that all kinds of “miscellaneous” or “optional” fees are unconstitutional.
The Court had repeated this position again in August 2025, when it warned the Karnataka Bar Council not to collect “optional” fees ranging from Rs 6,800 to Rs 25,000.
ALSO READ: UP Bar Council Advocate Registration Interviews on 11th and 12th January
While delivering that order, the Bench had emphasised:
“There is nothing like optional. No State Bar Council or Bar Council of India shall collect any fees of any amount as optional.”
With the new allegation against the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, the Supreme Court is once again examining whether State Bar Councils are trying to indirectly violate its directions by introducing new categories of fees. The Court’s final stand on this issue will be clarified in the next hearing.
Case Title:
Priyadarshini Saha vs Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee.
Read Order:
Read More Reports On Sunjay Kapur
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
