On April 8, 2025, the Kerala High Court directed the State Government to present all materials it relied upon for the recent hike in court fees. However, the Court declined to stay the implementation of the amended law.
The direction came from a division bench comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu while hearing a petition filed by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA). The petition challenges the sharp increase in court fees introduced under the Kerala Finance Act, 2025. These amendments modified the Kerala Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1959, and came into effect from April 1, 2025.
“The learned Additional Advocate General undertakes that the material which was before the Government based on which the impugned enactment was passed will be annexed to the counter reply,” the Court noted.
The KHCAA raised serious objections against the fee hike, stating that the increase ranges from 400% to 9900%. The association has contested the ad-valorem fee structure without any upper cap and challenged Section 73A, which exempts the State from paying any court fees.
The petitioners expressed that the State Government has not supported its decision with any verifiable study or public data. While the 2025 State Budget mentions that the hike was needed due to inflation, infrastructure improvement, and strengthening of the Advocate Welfare Fund and Clerks’ Welfare Fund, the association argued that no concrete evidence or report has been provided to validate these claims.
“There is no clarity as to how much of the court fee increase will actually go to the Welfare Funds,” stated the petition.
During the Budget session, it was announced that a committee led by Retired High Court Judge Sri V. K. Mohanan had advised on the fee revision. However, the KHCAA pointed out that despite filing several RTI applications and writ petitions, the committee’s report has still not been made public.
Read also: "She Stayed With You, You Must Answer": Kerala HC to Intelligence Officer in Suicide Case
The petition highlighted that this lack of transparency undermines the credibility of the hike, especially when it affects access to justice.
Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, instructed by Advocate Shinto Mathew Abraham, appeared for the petitioners. He requested the Court to stay the implementation of the amendment. One key concern raised was that even victims are now required to pay 1% court fee to claim compensation, which adds undue burden on those already suffering.
However, the Court declined this plea.
“We cannot stay a legislation without first hearing the State,” the bench remarked.
As the hearing progressed, the State Government sought to submit the justification materials in a sealed cover. This request was strongly opposed by the petitioners, who insisted that such critical information should be available for public scrutiny.
The Court agreed with the petitioners and rejected the request.
“The State has not given any valid reason to submit the report in a sealed cover,” the Court observed, firmly disallowing the move.
The Court has now directed the State Government to file a counter affidavit along with all relevant documents and data justifying the fee hike. This will form the basis of further hearings in the case.
“The learned Additional Advocate General undertakes that the material which was before the Government based on which the impugned enactment was passed will be annexed to the counter reply.”
“We cannot stay a legislation without first hearing the State.”
“The State has not given any valid reason to submit the report in a sealed cover.”
The matter will be next heard on 23rd May.
Case title: KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION (KHCAA) v/s STATE OF KERALA & OTHER
Case No: WP(PIL) 14/ 2025
