Supreme Court: There Is Nothing Like Optional | Bar Councils Cannot Collect Any Additional Fee During Enrolment
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has ruled that no State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India may collect any additional or so-called “optional” fees beyond the statutory enrolment fee stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Concluding contempt proceedings, the Court ordered the Karnataka State Bar Council to cease the collection of any such amounts, whether termed mandatory or optional, and reiterated that enrolment fees must strictly conform to its earlier judgment of 30 July 2024.
The contempt petition arose from allegations that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its 30 July 2024 judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 352 of 2023 regarding the permissible enrolment fees chargeable by State Bar Councils were not being followed in full.
The petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that the Karnataka State Bar Council was continuing to collect amounts significantly above the statutory limit. The statutory provision in question, Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, prescribes the enrolment fee payable by advocates seeking to be entered on a State roll. The Court’s 2024 judgment had held that the State Bar Councils (SBCs) and the Bar Council of India (BCI) could only collect the prescribed enrolment fee and stamp duty, if applicable, as a precondition to enrolment. Any additional charges were prohibited.
The petitioner alleged that despite these directions, the Karnataka State Bar Council was charging ₹6,800 and ₹25,000 respectively, in addition to the statutory enrolment fee. These sums, according to the petitioner, were collected under various heads, such as fees for identity cards, certificates, welfare funds, training programmes, and similar items.
Following notice, Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate and Chairman of the Bar Council of India, appeared before the Court. He filed an affidavit sworn by Awanish Kumar Pandey, Additional Secretary of the BCI, addressing the issue of compliance with the Court’s earlier directions. The affidavit reproduced paragraph 109 of the Court’s 30 July 2024 judgment, which expressly prohibited charging any enrolment fee beyond the statutory amount and declared that excess charges violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The affidavit stated that the BCI, to ensure compliance, had issued a communication on 6 August 2024 (Letter No. BCI:D:4088/2024) directing all State Bar Councils to proceed strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment. Upon receipt of the present contempt petition, and the Court’s order dated 15 July 2025, the BCI sent a further letter on 23 July 2025 (Letter No. BCI:D:5397/2025) requiring all State Bar Councils to provide details of fees collected at enrolment, within three days.
In response to the BCI’s communication, various State Bar Councils reported their current fee structures. The affidavit recorded that most State Bar Councils, including Karnataka, reported charging only the statutory ₹750 for General category candidates (₹600 SBC + ₹150 BCI) and ₹125 for SC/ST candidates (₹100 SBC + ₹25 BCI). However, it was disclosed that Karnataka was additionally collecting optional fees totalling ₹6,800 for items such as identity cards, certificates, welfare fund contributions, and training.
The affidavit further stated that the BCI believed all State Bar Councils were adhering to the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment and reiterated its commitment to ensuring compliance in both letter and spirit. The BCI maintained that it had acted promptly and diligently, and argued that there was no basis for invoking contempt jurisdiction against it.
During the hearing, the petitioner reiterated that the Karnataka State Bar Council’s collection of ₹6,800 and ₹25,000 over and above the statutory enrolment fee contravened the Court’s earlier judgment. In response, Mr. Mishra submitted that these sums were optional and not mandatory.
The Division Bench recorded the following observations from the Bar Council of India’s affidavit: “That subsequent upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court, the BCI, to ensure uniformity and compliance, has issued a detailed communication… directed them to strictly proceed with the enrolment of candidates in light of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2023…”
“That immediately upon receipt of the order dated 15.07.2025, the Bar Council of India, with prompt action, issued a letter… directing all State Bar Councils to furnish details regarding the fee being collected or charged at the time of enrolment… within a period of three days.”
“That in response to the said letter… the State Bar Councils have duly furnished the details that they are collecting only Rs. 750/- for General and Rs. 125/- for SC/ST.”
The Court then turned to the petitioner’s submission that Karnataka State Bar Council was collecting additional sums. Mr. Mishra’s position that such sums were optional was noted.
The Bench 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 in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the main judgment.”
The Court reiterated paragraph 109 of its 30 July 2024 judgment in full, recording that:“The SBCs cannot charge ‘enrolment fees’ beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands; … The SBCs and the BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a pre-condition to enrolment; … The decision of the SBCs to charge fees and charges at the time of enrolment in excess of the legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; … The SBCs are not required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected before the date of this judgment.”
The Court finally recorded: “If the Karnataka State Bar Council is collecting any amount in the name of optional, though it may not be mandatory, it must be stopped.”
The Supreme Court directed that no State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India shall collect any sum beyond the statutory enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and any applicable stamp duty, as a precondition to enrolment. It further declared that the concept of “optional” fees was impermissible.
The Bench ordered that the Karnataka State Bar Council must cease collecting any additional sums, whether characterised as optional or otherwise. The directions issued in paragraph 109 of the judgment dated 30 July 2024 were reaffirmed in full. These included the prohibition on charging enrolment fees beyond statutory limits, the invalidity of any additional charges at the time of enrolment, the constitutional infirmity of such excess charges under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), and the decision’s prospective operation without obligation to refund sums collected before the date of that judgment.
The Court declared that if the Karnataka State Bar Council was collecting amounts under the guise of optional payments, such collection must be stopped forthwith.
With these observations and directives, the contempt petition was closed. Any pending applications were disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Respondents: M/S. Ram Sankar & Co., AOR; Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.; Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv.; Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.; Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, Adv.; Mrs. Usha Prabakaran, Adv.; Mr. Maheswaran A. Prabakaran, Adv.; Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv.; Mr. Ajith Williyam S, Adv.; Mr. N. Adhil, Adv.; Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR
Case Title: K.L.J.A. Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council
Neutral Citation: Not specified in the order
Case Number: Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 16629/2025 in W.P. (C) No. 352/2023
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
