India needs uniform code for Bar fee

Recently, the Supreme Court transferred to itself the petitions pending in different High Courts of India that challenged the enrolment fee charge, deeming it unjustifiable, excessive, and in violation of the law. The recognition of this fee challenge as a critical concern is linked to the future of legal practice and the dispensation of justice in India, necessitating active involvement from all relevant stakeholders.

The Bar Council of India (BCI), a statutory body established under the Advocates Act of 1961 (the Act), plays a crucial role in regulating India’s legal profession and education. The BCI’s primary objective is to safeguard the rights, interests, and privileges of advocates throughout the country. State Bar Councils (SBCs) function as regulatory authorities within their respective states, working closely with and under the oversight of the BCI.

Enrollment as an advocate is mandatory for legally representing clients and participating in legal proceedings, ensuring adherence to professional standards and regulations set by the law. Therefore, individuals aspiring to become advocates must undergo an enrollment process overseen by SBCs, involving an “enrollment fee” as per Section 24(1)(f) of the Act. The statute mandates a payment of Rs 600 to the specific state’s SBC and an additional Rs 150 to the BCI, totaling Rs 750 as the fee incurred by an individual seeking enrollment as an advocate.

However, the enrolment fees are not uniform across the states, with Odisha having the highest at Rs 42,100, followed by Gujarat at Rs 25,000, Uttarakhand at Rs 23,650, Jharkhand at Rs 21,460, and Kerala at Rs 20,000. Recently, the Kerala High Court directed the SBC of Kerela to collect only Rs 750 as the enrollment fee, pending the matter’s revision and the BCI meeting of all SBCs that was convened on the direction of the Supreme Court, to establish a uniform fee for enrollment across India.

Indian law makes it clear that the legal framework provided by the Act takes precedence, ensuring that rules set by SBCs align with and do not contravene the provisions and intent of the enabling act. In DTU v BBL Hajeley, the Supreme Court declared such a rule invalid and observed that the provision of the enabling act cannot be infringed by any administrative rule or regulation. SBCs, through their various rules, have increased the enrollment fees under the garb of special fees.

Once the legislature has prescribed an enrollment fee, another fee, be it called a special fee or anything else, cannot be legitimately prescribed by the SBC or any other authority unless there is an express legislative requirement. If the SBCs believe this amount to be insufficient, the appropriate course of action is for the Bar Council to engage with the Central Government for suitable amendments to the concerned provisions.

The SBCs argue that they are tasked with conducting elections, incurring substantial costs, and fulfilling various statutory responsibilities. Additionally, the expenses associated with salaries for staff have escalated. Consequently, the enrolment fee structure encompasses various charges, primarily contributions to the Advocate Welfare Fund Trust, support for indigent and disabled lawyers, certificate fees, processing and verification fees, continuing legal education, and the Chairman’s Relief Fund.

In this regard, Parliament may consider maintaining the existing enrolment fees while incorporating an additional provision in the Act whereby an advocate may be required to contribute an annual fee to the State Bar Council as against the present exorbitant additional special fees. Implementing this would effectively address the persistent challenge of the inadequacy of funds available to SBCs. As the enrolment fees can reach as high as Rs 42,100, this approach would be a significant relief for aspiring advocates, making the legal profession more accessible and inclusive.

Advocates from underprivileged backgrounds would no longer bear the brunt of exorbitant upfront costs, facilitating a fairer and more equitable entry into the legal profession. It aligns with the broader objective of creating a legal environment that is not only robust but also promotes diversity and representation from all strata of society.

(Prakhar Bajpai is a student, and Siddharta Fuller is an assistant professor, National Law University, Punjab)