Author: Omkar Abhijit Thosar, a student at Advocate Balasaheb Apte College of Law (ABACL)
Introduction:
This case explores the validity of the discretionary power allotted to the state bar councils with regards to formulating the fee structure in terms of add on fees to be levied which are distinct from the enrollment fees that are mandatorily charged and must be paid by advocates who wish to enroll themselves with a state bar councils.
Enrolling in a state bar council is an essential prerequisite that all the law graduates must fulfill if they are interested in pursuing a career in litigation. Throughout the law course be it 3 years or 5 years law students do many internships with different firms, companies, NGOs or other organizations depending on their field of interest. The students who have a clear aim in mind to build a career in litigation, they do internships with single advocates or law firms whose primary work domain is litigation be it of any time such as civil, criminal, cyber, matrimonial, etc.
Most of the law students start doing internships in the second year of their law course be it three years or 5 years as most of the single advocates and even law firms prefer second year students rather than first year ones and its an unsaid norm in a way as it is assumed that a students requires the first year of the law course to get accustomed to the legal field as such as it’s a professional course and hence demands time and dedication.
The students therefore start with litigation internships second year onwards and most of them prefer to work with single advocates, especially the ones practicing in subordinate courts in order to learn and understand the functioning of these courts as it gives them a hands on experience on dealing with matters and handling clients. This experience serves as a foundation to work in law firms in the future wherein the workload is heavy and demanding.
The main point is that the internships done by the law students are largely unpaid and hence paying the enrollment fees itself is a challenge if the student comes from an economically weaker section and now on top of that if the state bar councils charge hefty add on fees too, then its grossly unfair on these students and its equivalent to denying their constitutional right to practice a profession of their choice.
Case Analysis:
Petitioner:
Gaurav Kumar, an advocate, filed a writ petition in the supreme court & appeared in person as the petitioner and it was his contention that the enrollment fees charged by the state bar councils are not in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates act. He further contended that the state bar councils are charging add on fees under different categories and are thereby acting arbitrarily with regards to charging such fees.
Issues:
The main issues in the case herein are that whether the state bar councils are acting in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act and whether they are violating the constitutional right of law graduates to practice a profession of their choice by charging such hefty fees.
Bench:
The case was decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court.
Decision:
The supreme court held that the state bar councils cannot charge fees which are above and beyond the fees mentioned in the provisions of the Advocates act. The supreme court further held that charging such hefty fees is in violation of the constitutional rights.
Key Points:
Burden of payment of hefty fees:
The burden of payment of hefty fees falls on the law graduates belonging to economically weaker sections of the society and due to this burden their enrollment in the state bar councils would be very difficult and hence this unfair charge of hefty fees needs to be done away with.
Making Add on fees a prerequisite for enrollment:
Add on fees charged under different categories cannot be made an essential condition that needs to be fulfilled in order to get enrolled in a state bar council. Add on fees are charged apart from the enrollment fees which increases the financial burden on the law graduates exponentially.
Violation of Constitutional rights:
The hefty fees charged by the state bar councils increase the financial burden on the law graduates to such an extent that they may not be able to enroll themselves in the state bar councils on account of incapacity to pay such fees. This is an absolute violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of being able to practice a profession of one’s choice.
Abstract:
This case covers the issue of unreasonable fees charged by the state bar councils which results in a huge financial burden on law graduates from the economically weaker sections of the society wanting to enroll into the state bar councils. The petitioner raised an important issue through this case by filing a writ petition in the supreme court which not only deals with the violation of constitutional rights of being able to practice a profession of one’s choice but also the arbitrariness exercised by the state bar councils.
The supreme court upheld the contention of the petitioner and stated that the state bar councils cannot charge fees that are above and beyond the fees given under the provisions of the Advocates act.
The supreme court further held that the act of the state bar councils of charging such hefty fees as well as the unreasonable add on fees is in violation of the constitutional rights.
Keywords:
Constitutional rights violation, Charging Unreasonable Fees
Conclusion
This case highlights the arbitrariness exercised by the state bar councils and their non adherence to the provisions of the Advocates act with regards to the charging of hefty fees as well as add on fees under different categories, thereby making the enrollment in state bar councils extremely difficult for the law graduates belonging economically weaker sections of the society.
The decision given by the supreme court was against such arbitrariness exercised by state bar councils and hence this case is a testament to the power of judicial review wherein no institution can function as per its own discretion if such discretion exercised by it is in violation of the provisions of the act which governs it or it is in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution.
Reference:
https://www.sci.gov.in/landmark-judgment-summaries/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46300019/
FAQS
Q1. What is the significance of this case? Answer: Through the supreme court’s decision the hefty enrollment fees and the unreasonable add on fees charged by the state bar councils were struck down and hence due to this decision the financial burden on law graduates belonging to economically weaker sections of the society was reduced drastically. This case also signifies that all the decisions of institutions are subject to judicial review and can be struck down if found to be arbitrary or in violation of the provisions of the act which governs such institution.
Q2. What is the contention of the petitioner in this case?
Answer: The petitioner’s contention was that the enrollment fees charged by the state bar councils are not in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates act. He further contended that the state bar councils are charging add on fees under different categories and thereby acting arbitrarily with regards to charging such fees.
