State Bar Councils, BCI cannot charge any 'optional' fee from enrolling lawyers: Supreme Court
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan passed the direction on a contempt plea filed by K.L.J.A. Kiran Babu, alleging that directions issued by this court in July last year on not charging exorbitant fees from enrolling law graduates by state bar councils, especially the Karnataka State Bar Council, are not being complied with in letter and spirit.
The Bar Council of India, in its affidavit, said all state bar councils are complying with the directions of the court and the ₹6,800 charged by the Karnataka State Bar Council for ID cards, certificates, welfare fund, and training, among others, and ₹25,000 over and above the statutory fees are optional and not mandatory.
'We make it clear that there is nothing like optional. No State Bar Council(s) or Bar Council of India shall collect any fees of any amount as optional. They shall strictly collect fees in accordance with the directions issued by this court in the main judgment,' the bench said in its order passed on August 4.
It further said that if the Karnataka State Bar Council is collecting any amount as optional, though it may not be mandatory, it must be stopped.
During the hearing, the Bar Council of India chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra stated that pursuant to the top court's July 2024 verdict, the council, being a statutory body, has written to all state bar councils on August 6 and directed them to strictly proceed with the enrolment of candidates in light of the judgment passed by this court.
'That after issuance of the letter, the BCI has firmly believed that all the State Bar Councils are adhering and complying with the judgment passed by this court in the matter,' the BCI said and gave a detailed chart of fees charged by different bar bodies of various states.
On July 30 last year, the top court ruled that state bar councils cannot charge exorbitant fees for enrolling law graduates as lawyers, as it perpetuates systemic discrimination against marginalised and economically weaker sections, besides undermining their participation in the legal profession.
The levy of exorbitant fees ranging from around ₹15,000 to over ₹40,000 by some state bar councils (SBCs) was 'contrary to the principle of substantive equality', the top court had held, adding the SBCs and the Bar Council of India (BCI) cannot 'alter or modify' the fiscal policy laid down by Parliament.
It had said the bar bodies are delegates of powers under the Advocates Act, 1961 and SBCs and the BCI cannot charge more than ₹750 and ₹125 for enrolling law graduates from the general and SC-ST categories, respectively.
The top court had said the decision of SBCs to charge fees and charges at the time of enrolment in excess of legal stipulation violated Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice a profession) of the Constitution.
It had clarified that its decision would have a 'prospective effect', and SBCs were not required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected so far.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
Justice astray? The Supreme Court's dog order is unfair and impractical
Sabina Dewan The apex court's order on NCR's stray dogs evoked outrage in the country's capital and beyond. It seems to not only ignore ground reality and scientific evidence, but also compassion in its zest for extreme measures. That the Supreme Court has taken up the matter again offers a glimmer of hope. The order demands the impossible: moving thousands of dogs to shelters that simply do not exist. Gift this article The Supreme Court's recent directive to round up and relocate all stray dogs in the National Capital Region to canine shelters within eight weeks appears to represent not just a failure of judicial wisdom, but a betrayal of the principles of reason and justice that should guide our highest court. The order, issued by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, could amount to a death sentence for thousands of voiceless creatures. The Supreme Court's recent directive to round up and relocate all stray dogs in the National Capital Region to canine shelters within eight weeks appears to represent not just a failure of judicial wisdom, but a betrayal of the principles of reason and justice that should guide our highest court. The order, issued by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, could amount to a death sentence for thousands of voiceless creatures. The cruel irony of this order lies not in its intent to protect Indian citizens from rabies—a legitimate concern—but in its apparent ignorance of ground realities. Also Read: Indian sophistication on stray dogs can be confusing First, this approach reveals an absence of scientific understanding. Every animal welfare expert can testify that mass sterilization and vaccination programmes—properly implemented—represent the only humane and effective long-term way to control stray animal populations and prevent the spread of diseases like rabies. Countries worldwide have successfully controlled stray populations through such programmes, which not only reduce numbers over time but also result in healthier and less aggressive animals. Yet the order ignores decades of evidence in favour of a medieval roundup that is likely to cause canines immense suffering. Second, the order demands the impossible: moving thousands of dogs to shelters that simply do not exist. Delhi's infrastructure cannot accommodate even a fraction of the estimated stray population, yet this inconvenient truth has been ignored. The predictable consequence has already begun to unfold. Stray dogs have been rounded up by untrained municipal workers using coercive methods—nets, ropes and batons—that cause trauma to animals whose only crime is existing without a human custodian. These creatures, many of whom have lived peacefully in neighbourhoods for years, are being torn from familiar territories and crammed into overcrowded shelters where conditions are so stark that survival becomes a matter of chance rather than care. Also Read: The mean streets are no happy home for stray dogs The cost of this folly will extend beyond the animals themselves. Community dogs often serve as informal guardians for neighbourhoods, deterring theft and providing companionship to many. Their sudden removal creates both security and emotional voids that the order has not taken into account. Meanwhile, the resources being diverted to this futile roundup could have helped fund sterilization programmes that would actually address canine overpopulation. The cultural implications of the order are also troubling. India's rich philosophical traditions— particularly Hinduism's principle of ahimsa (non-violence)—emphasize the interconnectedness of all living beings. The concept of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam"—the world is one family—explicitly includes all creatures, not just humans. By treating stray dogs as a problem to clear the capital region's streets of, rather than living beings deserving of compassion, the directive has reinforced the very hierarchical thinking that reduces the moral worth of vulnerable lives. The dozens of animal welfare organizations and concerned citizens protesting the court order are not obstinate activists—many of them are experts. They understand there is a more reasonable way to do things. This should inform our policies and their implementation. These are compassionate people who understand how we needn't be cruel to achieve safer streets and lower the risk of rabies infections among humans bitten by rabid dogs. The Supreme Court has taken up the matter again with the formation of a three-judge bench to look into it. On Thursday, the bench reserved its judgement on a plea seeking a stay on the directive. This re-examination of the order offers a glimmer of hope, but decisive action is needed. The court should rescind the directive, return the dogs that have been captured before the matter was fully heard in court, and mandate a comprehensive sterilization and vaccination programme instead. Delhi's government should be ordered to create actual infrastructure for animal welfare, not hastily constructed camps that could result in high canine mortality. As citizens, we must demand better. Justice without wisdom is mere power, and power without compassion becomes tyranny. The stray dogs of Delhi may be voiceless, but we are not. Their fate is a test. True justice protects the vulnerable. The author is founder and executive director of the JustJobs Network. Topics You May Be Interested In
News18
2 days ago
- News18
Raveena Tandon Demands ‘Freedom For All' In I-Day Post Amid Supreme Court Decision For Stray Dogs
Last Updated: Raveena Tandon, in her Independence Day post, urged 'freedom for all,' opposing the Supreme Court's order to relocate stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to special shelters. Raveena Tandon is celebrating Independence Day just like every other countryman, but her wish this year is a little different from others, as through her post, the actress has asked for freedom for all and has shared a picture of a stray dog holding our Tricolour high in the sky. This post has come amid high criticism of the Supreme Court's decision to relocate all the stray dogs to shelters in Delhi-NCR. While taking to her Instagram, Raveena Tandon shared the post and wrote, 'Freedom for all. #delhincrindies. When the authorities fail, there is always a fall guy. Inefficiency/corruption has led to this disaster." Raveena Tandon Opposes Supreme Court's Verdict In conversation with Hindustan Times, the actress shared, 'I feel where the population of indies has increased, it is honestly not these poor dogs to be blamed. It means the vaccination and sterilisation drives aren't done by local bodies." 'If that was a success, or the money and infrastructure was set properly, I don't think we would have reached this point. Local bodies are responsible for the strays in their communities, and sterilisation is the need of the hour," the actress added. About the Supreme Court's Verdict on the Stray Dog Case The Supreme Court on Monday ordered that all stray dogs in Delhi and the NCR must be caught within eight weeks and kept in special shelters that civic authorities will set up. The court made it clear that once a dog is caught, it will not be released back onto the streets. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan gave these directions while hearing a case taken up on its own about the rising number of stray dog attacks. The judges also said that anyone who tries to stop the authorities from carrying out the capture will face contempt of court action. The court further ordered that a helpline must be started in Delhi-NCR to report dog bite cases. If a complaint is made, the dog involved must be caught within four hours. Raveena Tandon on the Work Front The actress made a comeback to the silver screen with the thriller Maatr. She later appeared in the web show Aranyak, where she played the role of Kasturi Dogra, an investigating officer from Himachal Pradesh. She also starred in K.G.F: Chapter 2 and the Sanjay Dutt starrer Ghudchadi. Most recently, she has been part of projects like Patna Shuklla, Karmma Calling, and Inn Galiyon Mein. First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Bar Council of India imposes three-year moratorium on new law colleges nationwide
In a sweeping regulatory move to curb the proliferation of sub-standard law colleges across India, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has on Wednesday (August 13, 2025) announced a three-year nationwide moratorium on the establishment of new centres of legal education. During the moratorium period, no new centre will be established or granted approval anywhere in India, the regulatory body said. It further said no existing centre will introduce any new section, course, or batch without the prior written and express approval of the BCI. The council said it took this step 'to arrest the decline in quality across segments of legal education, evidenced by the unchecked mushrooming of sub-standard institutions, routine issuance of no objection certificates (NOCs) by State governments and affiliations by universities without proper inspection'. It additionally said that this step was aimed at preventing 'the commercialisation of legal education, widespread academic malpractice, and persistent shortages of qualified faculty'. 'Focus on quality enhancement' With around 2000 centres of legal education already operating, the BCI said the country's institutional capacity is adequate, and 'the focus must shift to consolidation, quality enhancement, and systemic strengthening in the interest of the public and in furtherance of constitutional commitments'. During the moratorium, existing centres will be subject to intensified inspections and compliance audits, the BCI said. 'The BCI may order closure or derecognition where institutions fail to maintain prescribed standards and will discourage issuance of fresh NOCs or affiliations for new institutions or courses,' it added. This is not the first time that the BCI has issued such a moratorium. In August 2019, the BCI imposed a moratorium on opening new law colleges for a period of three years. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in December 2020, struck down the moratorium. 'The present regulation [Rules of Legal Education, moratorium (three-year moratorium)] answers the court's guidance by enacting the measures through formal rules and reinforces the council's long-standing commitment to quality,' the BCI said.
