Supreme Court Bars State Bar Councils from Charging Any Additional or 'Optional' Fees for Enrolment

The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot levy any fee beyond the amount specified under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 for the enrolment of advocates. This clarification came while disposing of a contempt petition filed by K.L.J.A. Kiran Babu against the Karnataka State Bar Council.

Read in Hindi

The petitioner alleged that despite the Court's earlier directions in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (30 July 2024), the Karnataka State Bar Council continued to collect fees exceeding the statutory limit, including amounts labelled as 'optional'.

Read also:- Breaking: Historic decision of Chhattisgarh HC under Advocates Act Three legal experts became senior advocates

In response, the Bar Council of India (BCI) submitted an affidavit stating that it had issued clear instructions to all State Bar Councils via letters dated 06 August 2024 and 23 July 2025, directing them to comply strictly with the judgment. The affidavit detailed that most State Bar Councils were collecting only ₹750 from General/OBC candidates (₹600 for SBC and ₹150 for BCI) and ₹125 from SC/ST candidates (₹100 for SBC and ₹25 for BCI), in line with the Court’s order.

However, the Karnataka State Bar Council was found to be additionally collecting around ₹6,800 for ID cards, certificates, welfare funds, and training, among other purposes, on an ‘optional’ basis.

"We make it clear that there is nothing like optional. No State Bar Council 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," the Bench observed.

Read also:- Himachal Pradesh HC Intervenes to Protect Young Couple from Harassment

The Court reiterated the four key points from paragraph 109 of the Gaurav Kumar judgment:

1. SBCs cannot charge enrolment fees beyond the statutory limit under Section 24(1)(f).
2. Only the stipulated enrolment fee and applicable stamp duty may be charged.
3. Charging excess amounts violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
4. The decision applies prospectively; no refunds are required for fees collected before the judgment.

Directing that any such additional or optional fee collection must stop immediately, the Court closed the contempt petition.

Case Title: K.L.J.A. Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council