Supreme Court Warns State Bar Councils Against "Optional" Enrolment Fees

Introduction 

In August 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a categorical ruling prohibiting the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils from collecting any additional "optional" fees during the enrolment of advocates, apart from statutory fees prescribed under the Advocates Act, 1961. The central legal question concerns the legitimacy of fee structures imposed by regulatory bodies and whether "optional" charges constitute an unlawful impediment to entry into the legal profession. This article analyses the facts leading to the litigation, the interpretive reasoning of the Supreme Court vis-à-vis statutory and constitutional mandates, and the broader implications for professional access and regulatory governance. 

Regulatory and Legislative Context 

The enrolment of advocates in India is governed by the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 24(1)(f) prescribes the statutory fees payable for admission as an advocate: ₹750 for general category/OBC candidates and ₹125 for SC/ST candidates. These fees are intended to standardize, simplify, and democratize entry into legal practice. 

Despite clear statutory limits, several State Bar Councils—most notably the Karnataka State Bar Council—were found to have levied additional charges, often labelled as "optional fees," for services such as identity cards, training programs, welfare funds, and miscellaneous enrolment amenities. These additional costs, sometimes amounting to ₹6,800 or ₹25,000, created significant financial barriers for law graduates seeking enrolment, particularly those from marginalized or economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Genesis of Litigation 

The Supreme Court's intervention originated from a contempt petition filed by K.L.J.A. Kiran Babu, alleging non-compliance by the Karnataka State Bar Council with the Court's previous directions in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024), which had expressly capped enrolment fees at statutory limits and prohibited excess collections. The Bar Council of India, through its Chairman and by affidavit, maintained that it had issued directives to all State Councils for strict compliance. However, persistent reports of additional fees sparked judicial scrutiny and contempt proceedings.

Statutory Provisions 

• Section 24(1)(f), Advocates Act, 1961: Prescribes and limits the enrolment fee for advocates. 

• Bar Council of India Rules: Implement specific procedures for enrolment, grounded in the Act. 

• Constitutional Provisions: 

• Article 14: Principle of equality before the law. 

• Article 19(1)(g): Right to practice any profession, occupation, trade, or business. 

Arguments of the Parties 

• Petitioner (Kiran Babu): Argued that additional and optional fees are antithetical to both the letter and spirit of the Advocates Act and the Constitution. Such levies perpetuate economic discrimination and obstruct access to the legal profession. 

• State Bar Councils / BCI: Defended extra charges as optional, mainly for services deemed beneficial (ID cards, welfare schemes, etc.), contending that they were not mandatory and so did not violate the statutory cap.

Judicial Reasoning and the Court’s Holding 

The Supreme Court, through Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, undertook a strict construction of the statutory framework. The Court explicitly rejected the argument that "optional" charges could be considered lawful simply because they were not mandatory. The Court observed: 

“We make it clear that there is nothing like optional. No State Bar Council(s) or Bar Council of India shall collect any fees of any amount as optional. They shall strictly collect fees by the directions issued by this court in the main judgment.”

The Court reaffirmed the binding nature of Section 24(1)(f) and underscored that any collection above the prescribed fee—whether labelled as optional or otherwise—is impermissible and ultra vires. The Bench cited its earlier holding in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024), highlighting that excess fee demands violate Article 14 (equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice), constituting unlawful discrimination and restriction on professional access. 

The Court directed all State Bar Councils to immediately cease levying any amount above statutory limits, closing the contempt petition while reiterating the mandatory nature of its instructions. 

Ratio Decidendi 

• No State Bar Council or BCI may collect any fees under the guise of “optional” levies—the statutory fee cap is absolute. 

• Violation of statutory caps constitutes both a statutory and constitutional infraction, engaging the guarantee of equal access (Article 14) and the fundamental right to practice a profession (Article 19(1)(g)). 

Implications and Significance 

Standardization and Access 

The decision forcibly standardizes enrolment fees nationwide, demolishing previously allowed financial barriers posed by voluntary or optional charges. This guarantees: 

• Equal opportunity for all law graduates to enroll as advocates, regardless of economic background.

• Elimination of arbitrary or opaque fee structures that disproportionately affect candidates from marginalized communities. 

Constitutional Values 

The Court’s decision breathes life into the constitutional aspirations enshrined in Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), ensuring that professional regulatory bodies do not undermine the foundational rights of equality and freedom to practice a chosen profession. By striking down optional fees, the Court emphasizes that administrative convenience or welfare schemes cannot abrogate statutory and constitutional standards. 

Regulatory Reform 

State Bar Councils and the BCI are compelled to audit and redesign their enrolment processes and fiscal requirements. 

• Mandatory compliance with Supreme Court directions is reinforced by the contempt proceedings and the warning that non-compliance could attract further legal action. 

• Transparent fee structure facilitates regulatory oversight and public accountability, decreasing the scope for corruption or rent-seeking. 

Prospective Application and Wider Ramifications 

Importantly, the Court clarified that the ruling applies prospectively from the original judgment date (July 30, 2024), meaning excess fees collected prior need not be refunded. The ramifications, however, extend to:

• All future applicants nationwide. 

• Potential legislative or policy changes to introduce alternative welfare funding models, independent of enrolment fees. 

Residual Ambiguities 

• Whether State Bar Councils may provide additional services on an opt-in (but fully voluntary) basis, funded from non-enrolment sources, remains open for regulatory innovation. However, enrolment fees can never be a vehicle for such cost recovery. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court’s clear and unequivocal prohibition on “optional” enrolment fees has fundamentally restructured legal professional access and regulation in India. State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India are now bound to adhere strictly to the statutory fee ceilings under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, without exception or embellishment. This ruling upholds the constitutional mandates of equality and free occupational choice, sets a bright-line standard for regulatory bodies, and promotes uniform, fair entry to the legal profession.