In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court ruled that the exorbitant enrollment fees charged by State Bar Councils (SBCs) violate the rights of aspiring lawyers, particularly those from marginalized communities. The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, declared that enrollment fees should not exceed Rs. 750 for general category advocates and Rs. 125 for SC/ST category advocates.
The Court highlighted the connection between the right to choose a profession under Article 19(1)(g) and other fundamental rights, such as the right to dignity under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14. The justices emphasised that the ability to choose and pursue a profession is essential for an individual’s dignity and equal standing in society.
“Dignity is crucial for substantive equality. The right to pursue a profession and earn a livelihood is integral to an individual’s dignity,” the Court stated. It noted that imposing high enrollment fees creates barriers for individuals from marginalised and economically weaker sections, perpetuating systemic discrimination and undermining their equal participation in the legal profession.
The Court found the current fee structure charged by SBCs to be contrary to the principle of substantive equality and manifestly arbitrary under Article 14. It pointed out that the SBCs have set fees beyond the limits prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which sets the enrollment fee at Rs. 600 and Rs. 150 for the Bar Council of India for general category advocates, and Rs. 100 and Rs. 25 for SC/ST advocates. In some states, enrollment fees have reached up to Rs. 40,000.
The Supreme Court emphasised the responsibility of Bar Councils to ensure greater inclusivity and representation of diverse sections of society in the legal profession. The justices interpreted the Advocates Act as aiming to promote an inclusive bar, which cannot be undermined by arbitrary enrollment fees.
“The purpose of the Advocates Act is to create an inclusive Bar. Exclusionary conditions that create social and economic barriers defeat this purpose. Bar Councils must ensure greater representation of marginalized communities in the legal profession,” the Court stated.
The bench referred to the precedent set in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, which held that ensuring equality in outcomes through affirmative action contributes to substantive equality. They also referenced Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State of Karnataka, outlining the principles for challenging delegated legislation, including that it must not be manifestly arbitrary.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the SBC’s policy of charging exorbitant fees was manifestly arbitrary and not in conformity with the statute or Article 14.
“The decision of the SBCs to charge exorbitant fees suffers from the vice of manifest arbitrariness,” the Court concluded, underscoring the need for fair and equitable enrollment practices in the legal profession.
