Supreme Court Ruling on Enrollment Fees for Aspiring Lawyers

 

In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court ruled that exorbitant enrollment fees charged by State Bar Councils (SBCs) violate an aspiring lawyer's fundamental rights, including the right to choose a profession, dignity, and equality. The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, held that the enrollment fees must not exceed Rs.750 for general category advocates and Rs.125 for SC/ST category advocates.

Link Between Enrollment Fees and Fundamental Rights

Violation of Dignity and Equality

The Court highlighted the intrinsic connection between the right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) and its impact on other fundamental rights, such as dignity under Article 21 and equality under Article 14. It emphasized that the ability to choose and practice a profession is central to an individual's dignity and their standing in society.

• Quote from the Court: "Dignity is crucial for substantive equality. The dignity of an individual encompasses the right to develop their potential fully. Charging exorbitant enrollment fees creates a barrier to entering the legal profession, affecting the individual's right to livelihood and dignity."

Barriers to Marginalized Sections

The Court found that high enrollment fees create significant barriers for individuals from marginalized and economically weaker sections of society, impeding their access to the legal profession.

• Quote from the Court: "The levy of exorbitant fees as a pre-condition to enrollment denigrates the dignity of those facing social and economic barriers, perpetuating systemic discrimination and undermining their equal participation in the legal profession."

Exorbitant Fees and Article 14: A Barrier to Equality

Manifest Arbitrariness

The Court found that the high fees charged by SBCs are violative of Article 14, which mandates equality before the law. These fees, often far exceeding the statutory limits set under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, are deemed manifestly arbitrary.

• Quote from the Court: "The excessive enrollment fees are manifestly arbitrary and contravene Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, creating unjust barriers for aspiring lawyers from marginalized backgrounds."

Responsibility of Bar Councils

The Court emphasized that Bar Councils have a duty to foster inclusivity within the legal profession and cannot impose exclusionary conditions that hinder equal access.

• Quote from the Court: "The Bar Councils must ensure greater representation of marginalized communities in the legal profession. The purpose of the Advocates Act is to promote an inclusive bar, which cannot be undermined by arbitrary fee measures."

Enrollment Fees and Article 19(1)(g): Statutory and Fundamental Rights

Unreasonable Restrictions

The Court observed that the excessive variance in fee structures across SBCs infringes upon the fundamental right to practice law, protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. High fees create economic hardships, especially for those from poorer backgrounds.

• Quote from the Court: "The excessive fees charged by SBCs are unreasonable and infringe upon the right to practice law. Such high fees, imposed without proper authority or valid reasoning, violate Article 19(1)(g)."

Delegated Legislation and Manifest Arbitrariness

The Court applied the principles from the decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State of Karnataka to determine that the SBCs' fee policies are manifestly arbitrary and do not conform to legislative intent.

• Quote from the Court: "The SBC's policy of charging exorbitant fees is manifestly arbitrary and not in conformity with legislative intent. This contravenes the principles laid down in Khoday Distilleries Ltd."

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the need for State Bar Councils to align their fee structures with statutory provisions and ensure that they do not create unjust barriers to entry for aspiring lawyers, particularly from marginalized and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The Court's decision reaffirms the fundamental rights to dignity, equality, and the ability to pursue a profession without undue financial burden.

Case Details: Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 352/2023 and connected cases.