What Enrolment Costs: Section 24(1)(f) and Gaurav Kumar

The Court also said that section 24(1)(f) cannot be defeated either directly or indirectly under the garb of different nomenclatures. That sentence is the operative one for a problem question, because the practice was not to charge a large "enrolment fee" but to charge a small one and add a long list of other heads.

Why the two constitutional articles

A student should be able to say why a fee is a constitutional question at all, and the answer is in the two articles.

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. A statute fixes one fee for the whole country; State Bar Councils charging widely differing amounts produce unequal conditions of entry to a single national profession for no reason connected with any object of the Act.

Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). A charge levied without authority of law at the threshold of the profession is not a reasonable restriction, because it is not a restriction imposed by law at all.

Two things the case did not do

It did not raise the fee. The Court said no case was made out for it to exercise its power under Article 142 to implement the Bar Council of India's draft enrolment rules in their current form. Changing the figure is for Parliament, by amending section 24(1)(f).

It did not order refunds. Because the State Bar Councils had been levying these amounts for a considerable time and using them for their day-to-day functioning, the Court declared the judgment prospective. A person enrolled before 30 July 2024 has no claim to a refund.

Where a Bar Council's money comes from instead

A fair question a student may be asked is how the councils are meant to run on Rs 600 per enrolment.

The Act provides for it in several places, and the answer is that the enrolment fee was never intended to be the main source. Section 46A provides for financial assistance by the Bar Council of India to a State Bar Council which needs funds to perform its functions. Section 7(1)(l) and (m) and the rules allow other receipts. And the Advocates Welfare Fund Act 2001 creates a separate fund; its section 15 requires a State Bar Council to pay to that Fund annually an amount equal to twenty per cent of the enrolment fee received under section 24(1)(f), which shows Parliament treating the section 24(1)(f) figure as the fixed base on which other contributions are calculated rather than as a fee the councils may set.

A worked example

Meera is enrolling with a State Bar Council in 2026. The Council's notice asks for the following before her certificate will be issued.

Which of these may lawfully be demanded as a pre-condition to enrolment?

The first two, because they are the figures section 24(1)(f) prescribes. The third, because the clause expressly mentions stamp duty chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act 1899.

The last three may not. Gaurav Kumar holds that neither the State Bar Councils nor the Bar Council of India may demand fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty as a pre-condition to enrolment, and that section 24(1)(f) cannot be defeated indirectly under the garb of different nomenclatures. Calling a charge a library fee does not take it outside the section.

Change one fact. Meera enrolled in 2021 and paid all six heads. Can she recover the excess? No. The judgment was given prospective effect and the Court declared that State Bar Councils are not required to refund excess fees collected before its date.

And a limit worth noting. The holding is about what may be demanded as a pre-condition to enrolment. It does not follow that every payment an advocate ever makes to a Bar Council is unlawful; what the case forbids is making enrolment itself conditional on paying more than the section allows.

What beginners get wrong

The figure is not Rs 600. It is Rs 600 to the State Bar Council and Rs 150 to the Bar Council of India, and the concessional figures for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe applicants are Rs 100 and Rs 25.

The case did not strike down section 24(1)(f). It enforced it.

The Court did not fix a new fee. It declined to use Article 142 to bring the Bar Council of India's draft rules into force.

Stamp duty is not part of the enrolment fee, but it is expressly permitted by the clause, so it may be required.

Quick revision

• Section 24(1)(f): Rs 600 to the State Bar Council, Rs 150 by bank draft to the Bar Council of India, plus stamp duty if chargeable. For Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe applicants with the prescribed certificate, Rs 100 and Rs 25. Figures substituted with effect from 26 December 1993.
• Bonnie Foi (2023) flagged the problem: fees differ between States and must not be oppressive at the threshold.
• Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 558, 30 July 2024: State Bar Councils cannot charge beyond section 24(1)(f); no fee other than the stipulated fee and stamp duty may be demanded as a pre-condition to enrolment; the excess violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); the decision is prospective, with no refunds of amounts collected earlier.
• Section 24(1)(f) cannot be defeated directly or indirectly under the garb of different nomenclatures.
• The Court declined to use Article 142 to bring the Bar Council of India's draft enrolment rules into force.
• Section 46A lets the Bar Council of India give financial assistance to a State Bar Council, and section 15 of the Advocates Welfare Fund Act 2001 requires a State Bar Council to pay the Fund an amount equal to twenty per cent of the enrolment fee received under section 24(1)(f).

Test yourself

1. State the fee prescribed by section 24(1)(f) and the concession. Six hundred rupees to the State Bar Council and one hundred and fifty rupees to the Bar Council of India, by bank draft, together with stamp duty if chargeable. For a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes producing the prescribed certificate, one hundred rupees and twenty-five rupees.

2. What did Gaurav Kumar decide about charges levied under other names? That section 24(1)(f) cannot be defeated either directly or indirectly under the garb of different nomenclatures, so a State Bar Council cannot demand library, welfare, verification or similar charges as a pre-condition to enrolment.

3. Which constitutional provisions were violated, and why? Article 14, because a single statutory fee charged at widely differing rates produces unequal conditions of entry to one national profession, and Article 19(1)(g), because a charge levied without authority of law at the threshold of the profession is not a restriction imposed by law and so cannot be a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).

4. Can an advocate enrolled in 2019 recover the excess fees she paid? No. The Court declared the judgment prospective in effect and held that State Bar Councils are not required to refund excess enrolment fees collected before the date of the judgment.

5. Did the Supreme Court raise the enrolment fee to a realistic figure? No. It said no case was made out to exercise its power under Article 142 to implement the Bar Council of India's draft enrolment rules in their current form. Altering the figure is a matter for Parliament.

6. How is the section 24(1)(f) figure used elsewhere in the law? Section 15 of the Advocates Welfare Fund Act 2001 requires a State Bar Council to pay to the Fund each year an amount equal to twenty per cent of the enrolment fee it receives under section 24(1)(f), which treats that figure as a fixed statutory base.