The Telangana High Court has upheld the ₹10,000 fee payable by advocates seeking to resume legal practice after suspension, holding that the amount is valid to the extent it is prescribed under the revised Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules. However, the Court clarified that the State Bar Council cannot independently impose any additional fee beyond the amount authorised by the applicable statutory framework.
Background
The petition was filed by K. Sree Hareesh Kumar, who enrolled as an advocate on July 30, 1992, but voluntarily suspended his legal practice on April 16, 2001, after joining employment.
Following his retirement on September 30, 2025, he approached the Bar Council of Telangana to resume legal practice. However, he was informed that approximately ₹12,000 was payable towards the resumption fee and other charges.
The petitioner challenged the enhanced ₹10,000 resumption fee, arguing that the State Bar Council could not independently increase the amount through its resolution dated April 6, 2024, without specific statutory authority.
He relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, arguing that compulsory professional fees must have proper statutory backing.
The Bar Council of Telangana defended the fee, stating that it was compensatory and regulatory in nature and covered administrative expenses, including application scrutiny, biometric verification, background checks and maintenance of the State roll.
The Bar Council of India, meanwhile, submitted that its revised fee schedule, effective from August 6, 2024, prescribed ₹10,000 payable to the concerned State Bar Council and ₹4,000 to the BCI towards resumption of practice.
It argued that the revised schedule applied because the petitioner had sought resumption after its effective date.
Justice N. Tukaramji examined the statutory authority of the Bar Councils to prescribe resumption fees and observed that Section 49(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961, empowers the Bar Council of India to prescribe fees in matters governed by the Act.
The Court referred to the Kerala High Court's decision in Jinan K.R. v. Bar Council of Kerala, which held that a State Bar Council cannot charge a resumption fee exceeding the amount prescribed by the BCI Rules.
The Court clarified:
"The material question, therefore, is whether the demand for Rs.10,000/- represents the fee prescribed by the Bar Council of India under the revised schedule or an independent levy imposed by respondent No.1 pursuant to its resolution dated 06.04.2024. If the demand represents an independent levy, respondent No.1 must establish the statutory or rule-based authority for imposing it. Merely characterising a levy as administrative, regulatory or compensatory does not, by itself, establish the requisite legal authority."
The Court further observed that the Supreme Court's ruling in Gaurav Kumar primarily concerned enrolment fees and did not independently determine the permissible fee for resumption of practice.
The High Court rejected the challenge to the ₹10,000 fee to the extent that it corresponded to the amount prescribed under the revised Part VIII of the BCI Rules, effective from August 6, 2024.
However, it made clear that the State Bar Council could not impose any additional charge beyond the amount authorised under the Advocates Act and applicable rules.
The Court further clarified:
"It is clarified that respondent No.1 shall not levy any additional fee over and above the amount authorised under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the rules framed thereunder. Any contribution payable towards the Advocates’ Welfare Fund, or under any other statutory scheme, shall be levied only by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. Any amount already paid by the petitioner towards such contribution shall be duly credited."
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: K. Sree Hareesh Kumar v. Bar Council of Telangana & Anr.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3968 of 2026
Judge: Justice N. Tukaramji
Decision Date: 27 October 2026
