Karnataka High Court Orders Refund of Excess Enrollment Fees by State Bar Council

State Bar Councils Directed to Adhere to Statutory Limits on Enrollment Fees, Following Supreme Court's Precedent

In a significant ruling that reinforces adherence to statutory mandates, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to refund any excess fees collected beyond the statutory limit prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The order comes in light of a writ petition filed by advocate Ravichandragouda R. Patil, challenging the collection of optional fees amounting to Rs. 6800, in addition to the legally sanctioned enrollment fee of Rs. 750.

The petitioner, who appeared in person, argued that the Karnataka State Bar Council’s practice of collecting additional fees was illegal and unconstitutional. The Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, upheld the Apex Court's decision in "Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India" which unequivocally determined that charging enrollment fees beyond the statutory amount is impermissible.

The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot impose any additional fees under the guise of optional charges, as this contravenes the legislative intent of the Advocates Act. It was clarified that the statutory enrollment fee covers all functions of the enrollment process, and any additional levy is unlawful.

The court ordered that if the petitioner submits a representation to the Karnataka State Bar Council within two weeks, the council must process the refund in accordance with the legal directives established by the Supreme Court. The High Court reiterated that future collections must strictly comply with the statutory limits.

The judgment is a follow-up to the Supreme Court's directive, which had already mandated all State Bar Councils to align with the statutory fee structure, thereby ensuring transparency and fairness in the process of enrolling advocates. The decision reinforces the principle that no additional fiscal burdens should be placed on aspiring advocates beyond what the law prescribes.

The ruling serves as a reminder to regulatory bodies about the importance of adhering to legislative frameworks and ensures that aspiring legal professionals are not subjected to unauthorized financial demands.

Bottom Line:

Advocates Act - State Bar Councils cannot collect enrollment fees beyond the statutory limit prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, even under the guise of optional fees.

Statutory provision(s): Advocates Act, 1961 Section 24(1)(f)

Ravichandragouda R. Patil v. Karnataka State Bar Council, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2807058