Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
Date: 30 July 2024
Judges: Hon'ble Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
Advocates: Gaurav Kumar (Petitioner-in-person), Manan Kumar Mishra (Senior Counsel for BCI), Raghenth Basant (Senior Counsel)
Acts and Sections: Advocates Act 1961: Sections 6, 7, 17, 24(1)(f), 28, 49 Constitution of India: Articles 19(1)(g), 32
Cited Judgements: O N Mohindroo v. Bar Council of Delhi (1968 SCC OnLine SC 3) Bar Council of U P v. State of U P (1973) 1 SCC 261 Dr Haniraj L Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (1996) 3 SCC 342 Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 516
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., addressed a crucial issue concerning the enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils (SBCs) at the time of admission of advocates to their rolls. The petitioner challenged the validity of these fees, arguing that they exceed the statutory limit prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act 1961.
Background
The Advocates Act 1961 was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to legal practitioners and to constitute a single bar for the whole of India. The Act establishes the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the State Bar Councils (SBCs), which are responsible for regulating the legal profession in India. The functions of the SBCs include admitting advocates to their rolls, maintaining the rolls, conducting disciplinary proceedings, and safeguarding the rights and interests of advocates.
Legal Framework
Section 24 of the Advocates Act prescribes the qualifications and conditions for a person to be admitted as an advocate. Specifically, Section 24(1)(f) stipulates the enrolment fee payable by an advocate: ₹600 to the SBC and ₹100 to the BCI, with reduced fees for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner argued that the additional fees charged by the SBCs under various heads such as library fees, administration fees, and welfare funds are not authorized by the Act and are therefore illegal.
Issues Raised
The primary issues before the Court were:
Whether the enrolment fees charged by the SBCs are in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
Whether the payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment.
Submissions by the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The enrolment fees charged by the SBCs are exorbitant and not in conformity with Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
The SBCs cannot invoke their rule-making powers to charge fees beyond what is prescribed by the Act.
The additional fees imposed by the SBCs create an unjust barrier to entry into the legal profession, particularly for economically weaker sections, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
BCI’s Defence:
The SBCs require adequate funds to discharge their functions, which include administrative expenses and welfare activities for advocates.
The enrolment fee prescribed by the Act is outdated and inadequate to meet current financial demands.
The additional fees are justified as they cover various services provided to advocates, such as library facilities, identity cards, and welfare schemes.
Court’s Analysis
Delegated Legislation and Rule-making Powers: The Court examined the rule-making powers of the SBCs under Sections 15 and 28 of the Advocates Act. It reiterated that while SBCs have broad regulatory powers, these powers must be exercised within the framework of the parent statute and cannot contravene its provisions. The Court emphasized that delegated legislation must align with the legislative policy and cannot override the specific provisions of the parent act.
Regulatory Fees: The Court discussed the nature of fees as regulatory instruments. It highlighted that fees charged by regulatory bodies must have a reasonable relationship with the services rendered. The Court noted that while SBCs perform important functions, including welfare activities and legal education, the fees charged should not exceed what is reasonably necessary to cover these activities.
Detailed Examination of Delegated Legislation
The Supreme Court's analysis delved deeply into the principles governing delegated legislation. It reiterated that while legislative bodies may delegate powers to regulatory authorities, such as the SBCs, these bodies must operate strictly within the bounds set by the parent statute. The Court emphasized that any rules or fees imposed by SBCs must align with the legislative policy and objectives of the Advocates Act. It was noted that the legislative intent behind Section 24(1)(f) was to standardize the enrolment fee across the country, ensuring uniformity and preventing the imposition of arbitrary fees by individual SBCs.
Addressing Economic Barriers
The judgement highlighted the adverse impact of exorbitant enrolment fees on economically weaker sections. The Court acknowledged that high fees could deter capable law graduates from entering the legal profession, thus undermining the profession's inclusivity and diversity. The Court noted, “The exorbitant enrolment fees prevent law graduates belonging to economically weaker sections of society from getting admitted to the rolls of the SBCs. Such an indirect bar on law graduates enrolling as advocates offends Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.” This reinforces the constitutional mandate for equal opportunity and non-discrimination, ensuring that the legal profession remains accessible to all qualified individuals, irrespective of their economic background.
Financial Accountability and Transparency
The Court also stressed the need for financial accountability and transparency in the functioning of the SBCs. It directed that any fees collected must be justifiable and directly linked to the services rendered. The judgement called for a detailed audit and financial reporting by the SBCs to ensure that the collected fees are utilized effectively and transparently for the intended purposes, such as legal education, welfare schemes, and administrative expenses.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. is a landmark judgement that clarifies the limits of the rule-making powers of the SBCs and ensures that the enrolment process for advocates remains fair and accessible. It underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and maintaining a reasonable relationship between the fees charged and the services rendered by regulatory bodies. This judgement is a significant step towards ensuring equality and fairness in the legal profession in India.
Comments