Supreme Court: In a contempt petition filed for non-compliance with the judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, (2025) 1 SCC 641, wherein the Court had held that the State Bar Councils cannot charge enrollment fees beyond the limits prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Under Section
The Division Bench of JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, JJ. directed the Bar Council of India (‘BCI’) to issue written circulars once again to all State Bar Councils, instructing them to comply with the statutory fee limits. The Court warned that if, in the future, any State Bar Council is found charging fees more than the statutory limits, it would be directly held in contempt of Court.
By its order dated 17-10-2025, the Court had directed counsel for the BCI, to obtain appropriate instructions from the Council and report back on the next date of hearing.
When the matter came up for further hearing, the counsel informed the Court that the BCI had communicated to all State Bar Councils across the country that they were duty-bound to comply with the Court’s directions issued in Gaurav Kumar (supra).
The Bench noted that although the BCI had taken up the issue with all State Bar Councils regarding compliance with the aforesaid directions, several State Bar Councils continued to recover enrollment fees in excess of the statutory amount prescribed.
The Court granted the BCI one final opportunity to address the matter seriously with all State Bar Councils and directed that this be done through a written circular. The Court further directed that once the circulars were sent by email to each State Bar Council, the respective Councils must respond to the BCI without delay. The exercise was to be completed within four weeks.
The Court made it clear that if it was brought to its notice in future that any State Bar Council was charging beyond the statutory fee, the authority concerned would be held guilty of contempt. This warning was also to be explicitly mentioned in the circular issued by the BCI.
Additionally, the Court directed the BCI to inform all State Bar Councils that they cannot withhold the documents of applicants seeking enrollment. If any applicant sought the return of their documents, the same were to be returned immediately. The Court emphasised that no State Bar Council should retain applicants’ documents on the ground of non-payment of fees, once the statutorily prescribed amount had been paid.
The matter was directed to be listed after four weeks, and dasti service was permitted.
[Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee, Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No.59883/ 2025, decided on 30-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv., Mr. Naman Sherstra, Adv., Mr. Chirantan Saha, Adv., Ms. Paromita Majumdar, AOR, Ms. Meenakshi Vimal, Adv., Ms. Tanu Jain, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thalour, Adv., Mr. Karan Sherwal, Adv., Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Deepak Yadav (in Person), Adv., Ms. Anjale Kumari, Adv., Mr. Aditya Yadav, Adv., Mr. Taiyyab Khan Salmani, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR
For Respondent(s): Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR, M/s.Ram Sankar & Co, AOR, Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR, Mr. Akash Singh, Adv., Ms. Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha, Adv., Ms. Monalisa Singh, Adv., Mr. Akash Pratap Singh, Adv.