Supreme Court: While considering a contempt petition concerning non-compliance of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, (2025) 1 SCC 641, as regards to enrolment fee which the State Bar Council are entitled to collect, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ., clarified that State Bar Councils or Bar Council of India shall not collect any fees of any amount as optional. The Court emphasised that the Bar Councils shall strictly collect fees in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the main judgment.
Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India submitted an affidavit detailing the Fee Structure as reported by various State Bar Councils in compliance with Gaurav Kumar (supra) decision and stated that the Supreme Court directions are being followed.
Per contra, the contempt petitioner alleged that Karnataka State Bar Council charging amounts of Rs 6800 and Rs 25,000 respectively over and above the statutory fees.
Answering to the above allegation, the counsel for BCI submitted that the afore-stated amounts are optional and not mandatory.
Perusing the affidavit, allegations levelled by the contempt petitioner and directions issued by the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar (supra), the Court strictly clarified that, “there is nothing like optional”. The Court further reiterated the directions in Gaurav Kumar (supra) and directed that if Karnataka State Bar Council is collecting any amount in the name of optional, though it may not be mandatory, it must be stopped.
[KLJA Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council, DIARY NO.16629/2025, decided on 4-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Petitioner —in-person
For Respondent(s): Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR Sr. Adv. Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, Adv. Mrs. Usha Prabakaran, Adv. Mr. Maheswaran A Prabakaran, Adv. Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv. Mr. Ajith Williyam S, Adv. Mr. N Adhil, Adv. Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR
