The Supreme Court has issued a notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenges the current fee structure and incidental charges levied by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan passed the order after the petitioner—a practicing lawyer—informed the Court that he had made a representation to the BCI as per a previous court order. However, he received no response from the BCI. The matter has now been scheduled for the next hearing on July 15.

Read Also: High Courts Can Quash Domestic Violence Act Complaints Using Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court

The petitioner questions the BCI’s collection of ₹3,500 plus incidental charges from General/OBC candidates and ₹2,500 plus incidental charges from SC/ST candidates. He has requested the Court to prohibit the BCI from collecting these amounts in future AIBE exams and seeks a refund of the fees already collected for AIBE-XIX.

The petitioner argues that the current fee system violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Profession) of the Constitution of India, along with Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

“The enrolment fee should not exceed ₹750 for general category advocates and ₹125 for SC/ST categories, as per Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961,”
— Petitioner referring to Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (3-judge bench decision).

Read Also: Supreme Court Forms SIT to Probe BJP Minister Vijay Shah’s Remarks Against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi

Earlier, in February 2025, the petitioner’s initial plea was disposed of by the Supreme Court, with the liberty to return if the BCI failed to decide his representation in reasonable time.

During those proceedings, Justice Pardiwala acknowledged BCI's financial needs:

“You want the Bar Council to survive or not? We have otherwise also chopped off their both upper limbs and lower limbs… Once you pay ₹3,500, you will start earning ₹3,50,000. What is the problem in initially paying ₹3,500 to BCI?”
— Justice JB Pardiwala

Read Also: Supreme Court Stays Demolition of Bale Shah Peer Dargah, Orders Status Quo

When the petitioner raised concerns about the fundamental rights of young advocates, the bench directed him to first approach the BCI.

Case Title: SANYAM GANDHI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 288/2025