The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, on 11 September 2025, stepped in to protect an advocate from what it described as an unwarranted demand of transfer fees. The bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf directed the State Bar Council to immediately register the petitioner's name, at least for now, without asking for any extra money.
Background
The case was brought by Rohit Pathak, a practicing lawyer who had initially enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi. For personal reasons, he decided to shift his practice from Delhi to Jabalpur and accordingly sought transfer of his enrollment from the Delhi roll to the Madhya Pradesh roll.
Read also:- BREAKING: Madhya Pradesh High Court Halts Live Streaming of Criminal Cases Amid Misuse Allegations
As per procedure, he applied to the Bar Council of India (BCI), paid the necessary charges there, and obtained a transfer order dated 5 July 2025. His certificate was also duly endorsed by the Bar Council of Delhi and forwarded to the Madhya Pradesh Bar Council.
Yet, instead of registering his name straightaway, the Madhya Pradesh council demanded ₹15,000 as transfer fees. Pathak challenged this, pointing out that the Advocates Act, 1961 itself clearly prohibits charging any such fee.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Upholds Income Tax Search on Family Lockers, Dismisses Petition Alleging Illegal Seizure
Court's Observations
The bench carefully referred to Section 18 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which says that once an application is allowed by the Bar Council of India, the name must be transferred "without the payment of any fee.' The judges emphasized that the law leaves no space for doubt on this aspect.
The provision is explicit, the bench remarked, noting that seniority of an advocate also remains intact after such transfers. Since the Bar Council of India had already approved Pathak’s request, and the Delhi council had endorsed his certificate, nothing more was left except registration in Madhya Pradesh.
Read also:- Supreme Court Quashes Separate Trial of Haryana MLA Mamman Khan, Orders Joint Hearing in Nuh Violence Case
The demand of ₹15,000 is prima facie contrary to Section 18, the judges hinted, while reminding the State Bar Council that statutory bodies cannot overreach legislative provisions.
Decision
After hearing both sides, the High Court issued notice to the Bar Council of India and the Madhya Pradesh Bar Council. The Court, however, chose not to involve the Delhi Bar Council at this stage since its role was already completed.
Accepting the request of the Madhya Pradesh council’s counsel for time to take instructions, the bench posted the matter for 7 October 2025.
Read also:- Supreme Court Reschedules September 15 Hearings After Justice Narasimha Announces One-Day Absence
But in the meantime, the Court gave a clear interim direction:
"The State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh is directed to register the name of the petitioner in its roll, subject to further orders, without charging any fee at this stage."
With that interim relief, Rohit Pathak’s name will figure in the Madhya Pradesh roll, at least till the matter comes up again in October. The final word, of course, is still to come.
Case Title: Rohit Pathak vs. The Bar Council of India and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 35160 of 2025
