The Supreme Court (SC) today, February 24, heard a petition filed by an advocate appearing as petitioner-in-person, challenging the fee structure and incidental charges of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). This was stated in a report by LiveLaw.
The petitioner contended that the Bar Council of India (BCI) charges Rs 3,500 for the AIBE, which he argued is in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gaurav Kumar v Union of India (2024).
In the Gaurav Kumar judgment, a three-judge bench led by former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had held that the enrollment fee for advocates cannot exceed Rs 750 for the General category and Rs 125 for SC/ST (Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe) categories, as per Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
A bench comprising Justices Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, after briefly hearing the petitioner, directed him to first make a representation before the BCI. The court stated that if the petitioner does not receive a response within a reasonable time, he may approach the court again.
At the outset, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked on the financial needs of the BCI: "You want the Bar Council to survive or not? We have otherwise also chopped off their both upper limbs and lower limbs. You are referring to my judgment? Now, they are also to survive. They have a staff to maintain. They have to recover something. Once you pay this amount of Rs 3,500, you will start earning Rs 3,50,000. What is the problem in initially paying Rs 3,500 to BCI?"
Justice Pardiwala also questioned the petitioner’s decision to invoke Article 32 jurisdiction, suggesting that the matter should have been taken to a high court instead. The petitioner, however, argued that the issue pertains to the fundamental rights of young advocates seeking to practice and that the current fee violates their rights.
The court, in its order, stated, "This petition filed in public interest is one relating to the fees of the All India Bar Exams. To be precise, the prayer in this writ petition reads as under... The petitioner, a practising Advocate, appearing in person invited the Court's attention to the decision in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India... The petitioner would submit that in view of this decision, the recovery of ₹3,500 plus other incidental charges as a condition precedent for appearing in AIBE is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. We are of the view that the petitioner should bring it to the notice of the Bar Council of India that this amount of ₹3,500 plus incidental charges are violative or rather contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court. It shall be open for the petitioner to prefer an appropriate representation and wait for the response of the BCI. If there is no response within a reasonable time, he may come back. Even if there is a negative response, he may come back."
