Case Name: Ravichandragouda R. Patil V. Karnataka State Bar Council And Bar Council Of India
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 105477 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
Court: High Court Of, Karnataka
Date: Monday, the Third day of November, Two Thousand Twenty-Five
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice M. Nagaprasanna
FACTS
The petitioner, appearing in person, is enrolled as an advocate in October, 2024. He contended that the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) collected fees in excess of the statutory enrollment fee of ₹750/-, prescribed under Section 24 (1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. KSBC, allegedly charged an additional amount of ₹6,800 under the category of “other fees”, along with other purported mandatory components. The judgement sought a series of writs to declare such collection unconstitutional, ultra vires, and illegal, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union Of India And Others (2025)1 SCC 641.
ISSUES
- Whether the respondents could charge fees beyond what is stipulated under the Statute.
- Whether the miscellaneous fees which are charged in addition to the enrolment fee at the time of enrolment can be considered as enrolment fee.
- Whether SBCs or BCI can charge miscellaneous fees as a precondition for enrolment.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Advocates Act, 1961: Section 24(1), Section 24(1)(f),
- Bar Council of India Rules: Part VI, Chapter II, Section IV-A, Rule 40
- Constitution of India: Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g)
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner: The petitioner argued that KSBC’s collection of ₹6800/- in the name of “miscellaneous fees” was “illegal”, “unconstitutional” and contrary to the Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Supreme Court had categorically from time to time held that no miscellaneous or additional fee can be levied as a precondition to enrolment. The petitioner sought for the refund of the excess amount and directions to KSBC and BCI to comply strictly with Supreme Court’s observations in ceasing any such fee collection altogether. The petitioner relied on the judgement Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union Of India And Others (2025)1 SCC 641, wherein the court stated that State Bar Councils cannot charge any amount beyond the statutory limits and holds that the charging of enrolment fees, in excess of the statutory stipulation, is impermissible in law. Also in KLJA KIRAN BABU v. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1659, preventing respondent No.1 from collecting any fee beyond the permissible statutory limit.
Respondent: The KSBC, represented by their counsel presented arguments to justify their collection of “other fees” as optional or necessary for administrative purposes. The counsel for KSBC stated that if the petitioner furnishes his account details and submits a representation, KSBC would refund the excess fee in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Counsel for BCI also acknowledged compliance steps that were outlined in the contempt proceedings.
ANALYSIS
The High Court examined the matter in the light of Supreme Court’s extensive reasoning in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union Of India And Others (2025)1 SCC 641 which held that enrollment fee cannot exceed ₹750 for general candidates and ₹125 for SC/ST and that no State Bar Council has legislative competence to impose additional fees, whether categorized as miscellaneous or optional. The Supreme Court expressly held that all miscellaneous charges collected at the time of enrollment including building funds, verification fees, are impermissible preconditions to enrollment. Further in, Klja Kiran Babu V. Karnataka State Bar Council 2025 Scc Online Sc 1659, the Supreme Court rejected the contention of optional fees holding that no State Bar Council or BCI could collect any fee beyond statutory stipulation. The High Court noted that these directions fully govern the controversy and thus KSBC is bound to follow them.
JUDGEMENT
The Karnataka High court held that the issue stands conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union Of India And Others (2025)1 SCC 641, which prohibits the collection of any enrollment related fee beyond what is prescribed. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation within two weeks and directed the KSBC to process it and refund the excess fee, bearing in mind the Supreme Court’s directions within three weeks of receiving representation. The Court further stated that KSBC would not collect any fee contrary to law.
CONCLUSION
The judgement reaffirms the Supreme Court’s clear pronouncement that enrollment fees beyond those prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) are illegal. By directing refund and ensuring compliance the Karnataka High Court has stated that Bar Councils as statutory councils must follow strictly to legislative limits and constitutional mandates. The decision strengthens the regulatory discipline over enrollment procedures and clarifies that access to legal profession is not burdened by unlawful financial barriers.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- SOUMITA CHAKRABORTY
Click here to read more: Ravichandragouda R. Patil V. Karnataka State Bar Council And Bar Council Of India
