Brief Facts
The petitioners, led by Mr. Arvind S. Avhad and a team of advocates, challenged the exorbitant enrollment fees levied by various State Bar Councils across India. They contended that these fees, which significantly exceed the amounts prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, were a violation of the statutory limits and effectively barred many aspiring lawyers from enrolling. The petition highlighted specific instances of excessive fees in different states, such as ₹42,100 in Odisha, ₹25,000 in Gujarat, ₹23,650 in Uttarakhand, ₹21,460 in Jharkhand, and ₹20,050 in Kerala.

Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 352/2023, Supreme Court of India Bench: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra Advocates: For Petitioner(s): Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR; M/s. Ram Sankar & Co.; Petitioner-in-person, Mr. Rohit Kumar, AOR; Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv.; Mr. M.F. Philip, Adv.; Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Prerna Acharya, Adv.; Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR; Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR; Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.; Mr. Risvi Muhammed, Adv.; Mr. Durgesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Shirsat, Adv.; Mrs. Resmi Shirsat, Adv.; Mr. Shivakant Vats, Adv.; Mr. Rohit Jaiswal, Adv.; Mr. Kailas U More, Adv.; Mrs. Nirmala D Borade, Adv.; Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR; Mr. Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR; Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, AOR; Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR; Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv.; Mr. S. Sunil, Adv.; Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv.; Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.; Mr. S. Prabakaran, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Apurba Kumar Sharma, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv.; Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.; Mrs. Harini Ram Sankar, Adv.; Mr. Muthu Ganesa Pandian, Adv.; Mr. G. Jai Singh, Adv.; Mr. G. Anandan, Adv.; Mr. B. Sasi Kumar, Adv.; M/s. Ram Sankar & Co.; Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.; Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.; Ms. Raavi Sharma, Adv.; Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR; Mr. C. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv.; Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv.; Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Adv.; Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR; Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR; Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv.; Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Kush Goel, Adv.; Ms. Bhavna Sarkar, Adv.; Ms. Rumi Chanda, Adv.; Mr. Narayan Laxaman Rao, Adv.; Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Adv.; Mr. Sachin Jain, Adv.; Mr. Vishal, Adv.; Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR; Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR; Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A., AOR; Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.; Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv.; Mr. Rao Vishwaja, Adv.; Mr. Abraham Mathew, Adv.; Mr. Harshed Sundar, Adv.; Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Adv.; Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR; Mr. Sushil Sonkar, Adv.; Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR; Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Adv.; Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Abhishek Gautam, AOR; Mr. Karan Kapur, Adv.; Mr. Vineet Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv.; Mr. S. Prabakaran, Sr. Adv.; Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.; Mr. P.S. Amalraj, Adv.; Mr. V. Karthikeyan, Adv.; Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.; Mrs. Harini Ram Sankar, Adv.; Mr. Debasish Mishra, Adv.; Mr. G. Jai Singh, Adv.; Mr. Reegan Raj, Adv.; Mr. Yusuf, AOR; Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, AOR; Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv.; Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR; Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.; Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.; Solicitor General of India; Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Adv.; Ms. Rashi Sheth, Adv.; Mr. Jaymin Parekh, Adv.

Issues:

• Whether State Bar Councils can charge enrollment fees exceeding those prescribed by Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• Whether the excess fees collected by State Bar Councils should be refunded to the candidates.
• Whether the judgment should be prospective or retrospective in effect.

Statutes and Sections Involved
Advocates Act, 1961:
Section 24: Prescribes the qualifications and conditions for enrollment as an advocate on the State Roll. The Advocates Act of 1961 under S. 24(1)(f) prescribes the enrollment fee payable to the State Bar Council as ₹600 and ₹150 towards the Bar Council of India for advocates belonging to the general category. For advocates belonging to SC/ST categories, the amounts are ₹100 and ₹25 respectively.

Judgment of the Court
The Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, ruled that the State Bar Councils (SBCs) and the Bar Council of India (BCI) cannot demand enrollment fees exceeding those prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the SBCs, as delegated authorities, lack the legislative power to alter the statutory fee structure determined by Parliament.

The Court's judgment was to have a prospective effect, meaning that the SBCs were not required to refund the excess fees already collected. The decision mandates that enrollment fees should strictly adhere to the statutory limits, and any additional fees collected beyond these limits are impermissible. The Court underscored that the exorbitant fees imposed by various State Bar Councils violated the principles of substantive equality and fairness, hindering the professional opportunities of aspiring lawyers.

In response to the issue of prospective versus retrospective application, the Court clarified that while future fees must align with the statutory limit of ₹750 (The Advocates Act of 1961 under S. 24(1)(f) prescribes the enrollment fee payable to the State Bar Council as ₹600 and ₹150 towards the Bar Council of India for advocates belonging to the general category. For advocates belonging to SC/ST categories, the amounts are ₹100 and ₹25 respectively), the SBCs are not obliged to refund excess fees collected prior to the judgment.

Analysis
The Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limits set by Parliament, reinforcing the principle that delegated bodies cannot unilaterally modify fiscal regulations. This judgment provides a clear guideline for State Bar Councils, emphasizing the need to align their fee structures with the legislative intent and statutory provisions.

The prospective nature of the judgment aims to balance the interests of both current and future candidates. While it prevents any further financial burden on future enrollees, it also respects the practical implications of refunding fees already collected. This approach ensures that the decision does not disrupt the existing financial arrangements of the State Bar Councils while still upholding the statutory mandates.

The ruling is significant for its focus on ensuring accessibility and fairness in the legal profession. By capping the enrollment fees at ₹750 (The Advocates Act of 1961 under S. 24(1)(f) prescribes the enrollment fee payable to the State Bar Council as ₹600 and ₹150 towards the Bar Council of India for advocates belonging to the general category. For advocates belonging to SC/ST categories, the amounts are ₹100 and ₹25 respectively), as mandated by Section 24, the Court aims to prevent the exclusion of candidates based on financial constraints, thereby promoting a more inclusive and equitable legal profession.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. Establishes a clear precedent regarding the statutory limits on enrollment fees for advocates. It reaffirms the authority of Parliament in setting fiscal regulations and limits the power of State Bar Councils to deviate from these regulations. The Court's decision to apply the judgment prospectively ensures that future enrollments are regulated by the statutory fee cap while acknowledging the practical difficulties in refunding excess fees already collected. This case marks a crucial step in maintaining fairness and accessibility in the legal profession, reinforcing the principle that financial barriers should not impede aspiring lawyers' entry into the profession.