Safiya Malik

The Kerala High Court, on December 31, 2024, delivered a significant judgment addressing the procedural requirements for enrollment with the Bar Council of Kerala. The case arose from an appeal filed by a law graduate, Alan Benny, who challenged a condition imposed by a Single Judge in an interim order. The condition required Benny to produce receipts for fees paid towards the verification of his educational certificates as a prerequisite for his enrollment with the Bar Council of Kerala.

The dispute centered on whether the Bar Council could impose such a condition, given a prior directive from the Supreme Court that explicitly prohibited the imposition of fees for verifying educational certificates. Benny, a resident of Thodupuzha in Idukki district, had filed his appeal seeking the removal of this financial burden, arguing that the requirement violated established legal principles and posed an undue hardship.

The appellant’s counsel relied on a Supreme Court ruling in WP(C) No. 82 of 2023, which categorically stated: “All universities and examination boards shall verify the genuineness of educational certificates without charging any fee for the purpose of verification.” The directive further stipulated that the obligation to initiate and expedite the verification process of educational certificates lay solely with the Bar Council, with no financial obligation to be borne by candidates. Benny argued that the interim order violated this directive by placing the onus on him to pay fees and produce receipts as proof of compliance.

The Bar Council of Kerala, represented by its Standing Counsel, countered this argument by citing a directive issued by the Bar Council of India in 2017 (BCI:D:529/2017 (COUNCIL) DATED 28.01.2017), which allowed State Bar Councils to collect Rs. 2,500 from candidates for certificate verification. The respondents submitted: “This nominal fee is a standard administrative charge, essential to cover the operational costs involved in managing the enrollment process.” They contended that the collection of such fees was a long-standing practice and was necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the system.

The Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, examined the legal framework, including the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the binding nature of Supreme Court directives. The Court observed that compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment took precedence over administrative practices or internal directives issued by the Bar Council of India. The Bench noted: “The directive of the Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally mandates that the verification of educational certificates must be carried out without levying any fees on candidates. The Bar Council’s role is to act as the intermediary, ensuring compliance with this obligation.”

Addressing the reliance on BCI Circular, the Court observed that it could not override the binding legal position established by the Supreme Court. The judgment stated: “The collection of verification fees as stipulated in Annexure R1(a) is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s directive and places an unwarranted financial burden on candidates. Such a requirement is not supported by the Advocates Act, 1961, or by any other statutory provision.”

The High Court further addressed concerns raised by the Bar Council regarding the practical challenges of verifying certificates within a limited timeframe. The respondents submitted that the next enrollment session was scheduled for January 5, 2025, and it would be difficult to complete the verification process before that date. Acknowledging this challenge, the Court directed the Bar Council to expedite the verification process but allowed Benny to enroll provisionally. The judgment provided: “The certificates of the appellant shall be forwarded for verification immediately. However, the appellant shall be permitted to enroll in the next scheduled session even if the verification process remains incomplete by that date. This is subject to the condition that, should the certificates be found to be not genuine or otherwise improper, the Bar Council shall have the authority to take corrective measures, including cancellation of the enrollment.”

Case Title: Alan Benny v. Bar Council of Kerala and Another

Bench: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan

Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 2153 of 2024

[View/Download order]