A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan handed the course on a contempt plea filed by Ok L J A Kiran Babu, alleging that instructions issued by this court docket in July final 12 months on not charging exorbitant charges from enrolling regulation graduates by state bar councils, particularly the Karnataka State Bar Council usually are not being complied with in letter and spirit.
The Bar Council of India, in its affidavit, mentioned all state bar councils are complying with the instructions of the court docket and the Rs 6,800 charged by the Karnataka State Bar Council for ID playing cards, certificates, welfare fund, and coaching, amongst others, and Rs 25,000 over and above the statutory charges are non-obligatory and never necessary.
“We make it clear that there's nothing like non-obligatory. No State Bar Council(s) or Bar Council of India shall accumulate any charges of any quantity as non-obligatory. They shall strictly accumulate charges in accordance with the instructions issued by this court docket in the primary judgment,” the bench mentioned in its order handed on August 4.
It additional mentioned that if the Karnataka State Bar Council is gathering any quantity as non-obligatory, although it is probably not necessary, it have to be stopped.
In the course of the listening to, the Bar Council of India chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra acknowledged that pursuant to the highest court docket's July 2024 verdict, the council, being a statutory physique, has written to all state bar councils on August 6 and directed them to strictly proceed with the enrolment of candidates in mild of the judgment handed by this court docket.”That after issuance of the letter, the BCI has firmly believed that each one the State Bar Councils are adhering and complying with the judgment handed by this court docket within the matter,” the BCI mentioned and gave an in depth chart of charges charged by completely different bar our bodies of assorted states.On July 30 final 12 months, the highest court docket dominated that state bar councils can't cost exorbitant charges for enrolling regulation graduates as legal professionals, because it perpetuates systemic discrimination towards marginalised and economically weaker sections, in addition to undermining their participation within the authorized career.
The levy of exorbitant charges starting from round Rs 15,000 to over Rs 40,000 by some state bar councils (SBCs) was “opposite to the precept of substantive equality”, the highest court docket had held, including the SBCs and the Bar Council of India (BCI) can't “alter or modify” the fiscal coverage laid down by Parliament.
It had mentioned the bar our bodies are delegates of powers underneath the Advocates Act, 1961 and SBCs and the BCI can't cost greater than Rs 750 and Rs 125 for enrolling regulation graduates from the overall and SC-ST classes, respectively.
The highest court docket had mentioned the choice of SBCs to cost charges and expenses on the time of enrolment in extra of authorized stipulation violated Article 14 (proper to equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (proper to follow a career) of the Structure.
It had clarified that its determination would have “potential impact” and SBCs weren't required to refund the surplus enrolment charges collected to date.
