GAURAV KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1489, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1489 : 2024 INSC 558
Gaurav Kumar 
v. 
Union of India and Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 352 of 2023)
30 July 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI and  
J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the enrolment fees charged by the State Bar Councils 
(SBC) are in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates 
Act, 1961; whether payment of other miscellaneous fees can be 
made a pre-condition for enrolment.
Headnotes†
Advocates Act, 1961 – s.24(1)(f) – Enrolment of advocates – 
Challege to the validity of Enrolment fees charged by SBCs – 
The grievance is that the fees charged by the SBCs at the 
time of admission of persons on State rolls are more than 
the enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the 
Advocates Act 1961:
Held: While acting as a delegate of Parliament, the SBCs and the 
Bar Council of India (BCI) can frame rules under the Advocates 
Act – However, any rule enacted by the SBCs is only ancillary 
and cannot be so exercised to bring into existence substantive 
rights, obligations or disabilities not contemplated by the provisions 
of the parent enactment – Further, the rules must align with the 
object and purpose of the Advocates Act, namely, the creation 
of a common bar and regulation of legal practitioners and their 
qualifications, enrolment, right to practice, and discipline – A 
delegate cannot act contrary to the express provisions and object 
of the parent legislation – A delegate cannot widen or constrict
the 
scope of the parent legislation or the legislative policy prescribed 
under it – A fiscal provision has to be construed strictly and a 
delegate cannot consider any circumstance, factors or condition not 
contemplated by the parent legislation – Section 24(1) lays down 
the qualifications subject to which an advocate may be admitted 
on a State roll – Section 24(1)(f) provides that the enrolment fee 
payable by general candidates is Rupees seven hundred fifty and 
* Author
1490
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
by SC and ST candidates, Rupees one hundred and twenty-five – 
Section 24(1)(f) reflects the legislative policy of the Advocates Act 
that subject to the fulfilment of other conditions of Section 24(1), 
the payment of the stipulated monetary amount will make a person 
eligible to be admitted as an advocate – Presently, the SBCs 
charge enrolment fees in the following manner: (i) they charge 
an enrolment fee according to the legal stipulation under Section 
24(1)(f), but charge miscellaneous fees, and (ii) they charge an 
enrolment fee beyond the legal stipulation in addition to charging 
miscellaneous fees – The SBCs cannot charge “enrolment fees” 
beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it 
currently stands – Therefore, prescribing enrolment fees beyond 
Rupees seven hundred for general candidates and Rupees one 
hundred twenty-five for SC and ST candidates is contrary to 
Section 24(1)(f) – The subject matter of enrolment fee is covered 
by the Advocates Act – Therefore, the SBCs, being delegated 
authorities, do not have any legislative powers to prescribe 
enrolment fees contrary to the statutory stipulation – Section 24(1)
(f) specifically lays down the fiscal pre-conditions subject to which 
an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls – The SBCs and the 
BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated 
enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a pre-condition to 
enrolment – The
decision of the SBCs to charge fees and charges 
at the time of enrolment in excess of the legal stipulation under  
Section 24(1)(f) violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the 
Constitution. [Paras 58, 66, 67, 68, 109(b), 109(c)]
Advocates Act, 1961 – All India Bar Committee – Legal 
Background – discussed.
Advocates Act, 1961 – A Complete Code – Admission and 
enrolment of advocates:
Held: The provisions of the Advocates Act indicate that it provides 
a complete machinery to deal with the admission and enrolment of 
advocates – The SBCs are vested with sufficient powers to ensure 
effectual and complete implementation of the enactment. [Para 26]
Delegated Legislation – When can a delegated legislation be 
challenged:
Held: It is well established in Indian Express Newspapers 
(Bombay) (P) Ltd v. Union of India [1985] 2 SCR 287 and State of 
Tamil Nadu v. P Krishnamurthy [2006] 3 SCR 396 that delegated 
legislation can be challenged on the following grounds: (i) lack of
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1491
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
legislative competence to make delegated legislation; (ii) violation 
of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution; (iii) 
violation of any provision of the Constitution; (iv) failure to conform 
to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of 
authority conferred by the enabling Act; (v) repugnance to any 
other enactment; and (vi) manifest arbitrariness. [Para 28]
Constitution of India – Arts.265 and 366 – Power to levy fees:
Held: (i) a fee is an impost in terms of Article 366(28); (ii) the 
expression “tax” occurring in Article 265 means all imposts, including 
fees and therefore any fee must be levied by the authority of a valid 
law; (iii) fees being a compulsory exaction of money, the power to 
levy fees cannot be implied; (iv) delegation of the power to levy 
fees to a delegate of the legislature should be specifically provided 
for under the parent legislation; and (v) the delegate must strictly 
act within the parameters of the legislative policy laid down by the 
parent legislation when levying fees and taxes.[Para 34]
Constitution of India – Advocates Act, 1961 – s.24(1)(f) – 
Enrolment fee meets the characteristic of a Regulatory Fees:
Held: The State grants a licence to regulate a particular trade, 
business, or profession – These regulatory activities entail a duty 
on behalf of the State or its instrumentalities to supervise, regulate, 
and monitor that particular
trade, business, or profession – Because 
such activities require the State to expend public resources, the 
State can charge licence fees to defray the administrative costs – 
The enrolment fee stipulated by Section 24(1)(f) of Advocates Act 
meets the characteristic of a regulatory fee. [Paras 35, 38]
Advocates Act, 1961 – s.24(1)(f) – Bar Councils cannot levy 
fees beyond the express stipulation of law:
Held: Section 24(1)(f) is a fiscal regulatory provision and has to 
be construed strictly – Parliament has prescribed the enrolment 
fees in the exercise of its sovereign legislative powers – The 
SBCs and the BCI, being delegates of Parliament, cannot alter or 
modify the fiscal policy laid down by Parliament – The delegate 
can create substantive rights and obligations only to the extent 
to which the parent enactment empowers the delegate – By 
prescribing additional fees at the time of enrolment, the SBCs 
have created new substantive obligations not contemplated by the 
provisions of the Advocates Act – The basis for the fees imposed 
by the SBCs has to be traceable to the provisions of the statute –
1492
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
There is no express provision in the Advocates Act empowering 
the SBCs to levy fees, except for the enrolment fee and stamp 
duty, if any, under Section 24(1)(f), at the time of admission of 
advocates on the State roll – The decision of the SBCs to charge 
miscellaneous fees is contrary to the legislative prescription of the 
Advocates Act. [Para 70]
Advocates Act, 1961 – s.24 – Charges other than the enrolment 
fee cannot be a valid pre-condition:
Held: Admission on the roll of advocates is a pre-requisite for any 
person intending to practice law in India – At the time of enrolment, 
candidates have little agency but to pay the miscellaneous fees 
imposed by the SBCs to get enrolled – Non-payment of the fees 
means that a candidate cannot get enrolled on the State roll – 
Thus, all the miscellaneous fees collected from a candidate at 
the time of enrolment essentially serve as a pre-condition to the 
process of enrolment – Section 24(1) specifically lays down the 
pre-conditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on 
State rolls – Since Section 24(1)(f) specifies the amount that can 
be charged by the SBCs as an enrolment fee, the SBCs and the 
BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated 
enrolment fee as a pre-condition to enrolment. [Para 79]
Bar Council of India Rules – Rule 40 under Section IVA of 
Chapter II of Part VI:
Held: Rule 40 under Section IVA of Chapter II of Part VI under 
the
BCI Rules mandates every advocate borne on the rolls to pay 
the SBC a sum of Rupees three hundred every third year – The 
sum under Rule 40 can only be collected from advocates already 
admitted on the State rolls  – Therefore, this sum cannot be collected 
from persons at the time of enrolment – It must be collected from 
advocates after they are admitted on the State roll. [Para 80]
Constitution of India – Art.14 – Enrolment of advocates – 
Exorbitant Enrolment fees charged by SBCs – Substantive 
equality and manifest arbitrariness:
Held: The burden of payment of enrolment fees and other 
miscellaneous fees imposed by the SBCs falls equally on all 
persons seeking enrolment – While the burden is facially neutral, 
it perpetuates structural discrimination against persons from 
marginalized and economically weaker sections of the society – In 
more than one way, the process of enrolment perpetuates a culture
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1493
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
of systemic exclusion and discrimination that impacts the entry of law 
graduates into the legal profession and even beyond – The right to 
pursue a profession of one’s choice and earn livelihood is integral 
to the dignity of an individual – Charging exorbitant enrolment fees 
and miscellaneous fees as a pre-condition for enrolment creates 
a barrier to entry into the legal profession – The levy of exorbitant 
fees as a pre-condition to enrolment serves to denigrate the dignity 
of those who face social and economic barriers in the advancement 
of their legal careers – This effectively perpetuates systemic 
discrimination against persons from marginalized and economically 
weaker sections by undermining their equal participation in the 
legal profession –  Therefore, the current enrolment fee structure 
charged by the SBCs (Eg: the Bar Council of Maharashtra and 
Goa charges a cumulative fee of Rupees fifteen thousand from 
the general candidates and Rupees fourteen thousand five 
hundred from SC and ST candidates) is contrary to the principle 
of substantive equality. [Paras 84, 90]
Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(g) – The right to practice law – 
Fees or licences levied by the authorities – Unreasonableness:
Held: According to the current enrolment fee structure of the SBCs, 
an advocate has to pay anywhere between Rupees fifteen thousand 
to Rupees forty-two thousand as a pre-condition to enrolment – 
The
SBCs charge enrolment fees in excess of the stipulated fee 
prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) – The excess enrolment fee 
imposed by the SBCs is without authority of law – Compounded 
with this there are no reasonable criteria behind the decision of 
the SBCs to charge such exorbitant amounts as enrolment fees –  
The SBCs cannot have unbridled powers to charge any fees 
given the express legislative policy under Section 24(1)(f) – 
Imposing excessive financial burdens on young law graduates 
at the time of enrolment causes economic hardships, especially  
for those belonging to the marginalized and economically weaker 
sections of the society – Therefore, the current enrolment fee 
structure charged by the SBCs is unreasonable and infringes Article 
19(1)(g). [Para 102]
Advocates Act, 1961 – Exorbitant Enrolment fees charged by 
the SBCs – Financial implications for the SBCs and the BCI:
Held: According to the legislative scheme of the Advocates Act, the 
Bar Councils must only charge the amount stipulated under Section 
24(1)(f) as an enrolment fee – Once the advocates are enrolled on
1494
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the State rolls, the Bar Councils can charge fees for the services 
provided to the advocates in accordance with the provisions of 
the Advocates Act – It is for the SBCs and the BCI to devise an 
appropriate method of charging fees that is fair and just not only 
for the law graduates intending to enroll, but also for the advocates 
already enrolled on the State rolls – There are several reasonable 
ways by which the SBCs and BCI can and already do collect funds 
at later stages of an advocate’s career. [Paras 103, 104]
Case Law Cited
O N Mohindroo v. Bar Council of Delhi [1968] 2 SCR 709 : (1968) 
SCC OnLine SC 3; Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, 
Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt 
[1954] 1 SCR 1005 : (1954) 1 SCC 412; Corporation of Calcutta 
v. Liberty Cinema [1965] 2 SCR 477 : (1964) SCC OnLine SC 65; 
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [2018] 7 SCR 379 : (2018) 
10 SCC 1; Chintamanrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1950] 1 
SCR 759 : (1950) SCC 695; Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, 
Kairana [1950] 1 SCR 566 : (1950) SCC 221; Mohammad Yasin 
v. Town Area Committee, Jalalabad [1952] 1 SCR 572 : (1952) 1 
SCC 205; Cooverjee B Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner [1954] 
1 SCR 873 : (1954) 1 SCC 18 – followed.
CIT v. McDowell and Co. Ltd. [2009] 8 SCR 983 : (2009) 10 SCC 
755; Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar 
Jayantikumar Pasawalla [1992] 3 SCR 328 : (1992) 3 SCC 285;
Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of MP [2011] 11 SCR 
965 : (2011) 9 SCC 573; S Seshachalam v. Bar Council of Tamil 
Nadu [2014] 12 SCR 465 : (2014) 16 SCC 72; Neil Aurelio Nunes 
v. Union of India [2022] 11 SCR 585 : (2022) 4 SCC 1 – relied on.
Bar Council of U P v. State of U P [1973] 2 SCR 1073 : (1973) 
1 SCC 261; Dr Haniraj L Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra 
and Goa [1996] Supp. 1 SCR 51 : (1996) 3 SCC 342; Girnar 
Traders v. State of Maharashtra [2011] 3 SCR 1 : (2011) 3 SCC 
1; Mahachandra Prasad Singh (Dr.) v. Bihar Legislative Council 
[2004] Supp. 5 SCR 692 : (2004) 8 SCC 747; In re Delhi Laws 
Act 1912 (1951) SCC 568; Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. 
State of Bombay [1961] 1 SCR 341 : (1960) SCC OnLine SC 27; 
Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1955] 1 SCR 380 : 
(1954) 1 SCC 978; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, 
Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi [1968] 3 SCR 251 : (1968) SCC 
OnLine SC 13; Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1495
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
Union of India [1985] 2 SCR 287 : (1985) 1 SCC 641; State of 
Tamil Nadu v. P Krishnamurthy [2006] 3 SCR 396 : (2006) 4 SCC 
517; Azfal Ullah v. State of U P [1964] 4 SCR 991 : (1963) SCC 
OnLine SC 76; Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. 
Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1966] 2 SCR 863 : (1965) SCC 
OnLine SC 75; D K Trivedi and Sons v. State of Gujarat [1986] 1 
SCR 479 : (1986) Supp SCC 20;  M P V Sundararamier & Co. v. 
State of Andhra Pradesh [1958] 1 SCR 1422 : (1958) SCC OnLine 
SC 22; Kandivali Coop. Industrial Estate v. Municipal Corporation 
of Greater Mumbai [2015] 1 SCR 989 : (2015) 11 SCC 161;  H H 
Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiar v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious 
and Charitable Endowments [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 302; Indian 
Mica Micanite Industries v. State of Bihar [1971] Supp. 1 SCR 
319 : (1971) 2 SCC 236; Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab 
[1979] 3 SCR 1217 : (1980) 1 SCC 416; Sreenivasa General 
Traders v. State of A P [1983] 3 SCR 843 : (1983) 4 SCC 353; 
Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners’ Association v. Hyderabad 
Municipal Corporation [1999] 1 SCR 143 : (1999) 2 SCC 274; 
Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U P [1997] 1 SCR 403 : 
(1997) 2 SCC 715; A P Paper Mills Ltd. v. Government of A P 
[2000] Supp. 3 SCR 513 : (2000) 8 SCC 167; In Re Sanjiv Dutta, 
Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting [1995] 
3 SCR 450 : (1995) 3 SCC 619; Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil v.
Bar 
Council of Gujarat [2017] 5 SCR 984 : (2017) 5 SCC 465; Gupta 
Modern DalitBreweries v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [2007] 5 
SCR 343 : (2007) 6 SCC 317; Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh 
[1980] 3 SCR 946 : (1980) 4 SCC 211; Reiterated in Bar Council 
of Maharashtra and Goa v. Manubhai Paragji Vashi (2012) 1 SCC 
314; Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India 
[1995] 1 SCR 304 : (1995) 1 SCC 732; Union of India v. Rajdhani 
Grains & Jaggery Exchange Ltd. [1975] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : (1975) 
1 SCC 676; Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of H P [2000] 1 SCR 
1054 : (2000) 3 SCC 40; Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. 
v. CST [1974] 2 SCR 879 : (1974) 4 SCC 98; Agricultural Market 
Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. [1997] Supp. 1 SCR 
164 : (1997) 5 SCC 516; General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. 
Subhash Chandra Yadav [1988] 3 SCR 62 : (1988) 2 SCC 352; 
Rajnarain Singh v. Patna Administration Committee [1955] 1 SCR 
290 : (1954) 2 SCC 82; Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1979] 
1 SCR 845 : (1979) 1 SCC 137; J K Industries Ltd. v. Union of 
India [2007] 12 SCR 136 : (2007) 13 SCC 673; Assam Co. Ltd. v. 
State of Assam [2001] 2 SCR 515 : (2001) 4 SCC 202; Consumer
1496
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Online Foundation and Others v. Union of India [2011] 5 SCR 
911 : (2011) 5 SCC 360; Global Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity 
Regulatory Commission [2009] 9 SCR 22 : (2009) 15 SCC 570;  
Bar Council of Kerala v. N S Gopakumar [SLP(C) No. 44268 of 
2018]; Akshai M Sivan v. Bar Council of Kerala [WP(C) No. 3068 
of 2023 (order dt. 12 June 2023)]; Joseph Shine v. Union of 
India [2018] 11 SCR 765 : (2019) 3 SCC 39; Nitisha v. Union of 
India [2021] 4 SCR 633 : (2021) 15 SCC 125; Hariram Bhambhi v. 
Satyanarayan [2021] 8 SCR 855 : (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1010; 
K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India [2018] 8 SCR 1 : (2017) 10 
SCC 1; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2023) 2 SCC 
209; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1995] Supp. 6 
SCR 759 : (1996) 10 SCC 304; Clariant International Ltd. v. SEBI 
[2004] Supp. 3 SCR 843 : (2004) 8 SCC 524; Shayara Bano v. 
Union of India [2017] 9 SCR 797 : (2017) 9 SCC 1; Secretary, 
Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India v. Cipla 
Ltd. [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 177 : (2003) 7 SCC 1; Franklin Templeton 
Trustee Services (P) Ltd. v. Amruta Garg (2021) 9 SCC 606;  N K 
Bajpai v. Union of India [2012] 2 SCR 433 : (2012) 4 SCC 653; 
Jamshed Ansari v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [2016] 4 
SCR 111 : (2016) 10 SCC 554;  R M Seshadri v. District Magistrate 
[1955] 1 SCR 686 : (1954) 2 SCC 320; Minerva Talkies v. State of 
Karnataka [1988] 2 SCR 511 : (1988) Supp SCC
176; Somaiya  
Organics (India) Ltd. v. State of U P [2001] 3 SCR 33 : (2001) 5 
SCC 519 – referred to.
Akshai M Sivan v. Bar Council of Kerala [Writ Petition (Civil) 
No. 3068 of 2023 in the High Court of Kerala]; Manimaran v. 
Bar Council of India [Writ Petition (MD) No. 8756 of 2023 in the 
High Court of Madars at Madurai]; Amey Shejwal v. Bar Council 
of Maharashtra and Goa [Writ Petition No. 3795 of 2021 in the 
High Court of Bombay]; Bar Council of Maharashtra v. Union of 
India (2002) SCC OnLine Bom 251; T Koshy v. Bar Council of 
Kerala (2016) SCC OnLine Ker 41055; Bar Council of Kerala v. 
T Koshy [W A No. 2170 of 2017] – referred to.
George Walkem Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board., 
1938 AC 708 – referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Draft Uniform Rules (For Enrolment and Other Fees To Be Charged 
By The State Bar Councils) 2023; Report of the All-India Bar 
Committee (1953) 15; The Legal Practitioners Bill 1959, Report
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1497
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
of the Joint Committee (28 March 1960); Shri Shankaraiya, 
Legal Practitioners Bill, Lok Sabha (27 April 1961) 14162; Legal 
Practitioners Bill, Lok Sabha (27 April 1961) 14164; Rajya Sabha, 
Advocates Bill 1961 (4 May 1961) 2125; Law Commission of 
India, Fourteenth Report, Reform of Judicial Administration 1958 
(Volume 1) 575; Resolution No. 32 of 2013, Gazette Notification 
dated 28 June 2013; BCI. D 7114/2016(C1) dated 22 December 
2016; Communication dated 28 January 2017 by the BCI to the 
secretaries of the SBCs, BCI:D 529/2017(Council) dated 28 January 
2017; Challenges for Dalits in South Asia’s Legal Community, 
Chapter III  – Dalit Justice Defenders in India, American Bar 
Association (2021) 16; Challenges for Dalits in South Asia’s Legal 
Community, Chapter III – Dalit Justice Defenders in India, American 
Bar Association (2021) 17 – referred to.
List of Acts
Legal Practitioners Act, 1879; Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926; 
Advocates Act, 1961; Constitution of India; Bar Council of India 
Rules; Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2011.
List of Keywords
All India Bar Committee; Delegated Legislation; Power to levy 
fees; Regulatory fees; State Bar Councils; Enrolment of advocates; 
Enrolment fees of advocates; Valid pre-condition; Substantive 
equality; Arbitrariness; Article 14 of Constitution of India; Article 
19(1)(g) of the Constitution; Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates 
Act, 1961; Bar Council of India;
Enrolment fee of advocates;  
Enrolment of advocates; Miscellaneous fees; Article 265 of 
the Constitution of India; Article 366(28) of the Constitution of 
India; Article 110 of the Constitution of India; Legislative policy; 
Marginalized communities in legal profession; Dignity of an 
individual; Reasonable restrictions; Excessive Enrolment fees; 
Financial implications for State Bar Councils.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 352 of 2023
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
T.C.(C) Nos. 28, 29, and 30 of 2023, T.P.(C) Nos. 2526, 1982, 
2088-2089, 2171, 2123 and 2734 of 2023
1498
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
By Courts Motion
Solicitor General of India, K.M. Natraj, ASG, Raghenth Basant, R. 
Balasubramanian, Manan Kumar Mishra, S. Prabakaran, Apurba 
Kumar Sharma, C. Nageswara Rao, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., Ms. Kaushitaki 
Sharma, Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Sachin Patil, Rohit 
Kumar, Shailendra Singh, Adarsh Mishra, Mrs. Usha Prabakaran, Ms. 
Divya, Ms. Rv Shaarumathi, G Jai Singh, Muthu Ganesa Pandian, M/s. 
Ram Sankar & Co, Dr. Arvind S. Avhad, Rajat Kapoor, Sushil Sonkar, 
Sanjay Shirsat, Mrs. Resmi Shirsat, Shivakant Vats, Rohit Jaiswal, 
Mangesh Naik, Dnyaneshwar N Telange, Kailas Bajirao Autade, 
Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Ms. Rashi 
Sheth, Ms. Sumbul Ausaf, Ms. Deeplaxmi Matwankar, Dr. Rakesh 
Kumar, Ms. Kalyani Lal, Prabhas Bajaj, Anmol Chandan, Sharath 
Nambiar, Ms. Ruchi Gour Narula, Shivank Pratap Singh, Satvik 
Mishra, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Shubham Saurav, Gaurav Sharma, 
M/s. Axess Legal Corp, Nitin Lonkar, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, 
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya 
Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Ms. Deepanwita 
Priyanka, M. Naveen, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, G Anandan, Dr. Ram 
Sankar, B Sasi Kumar, Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, M/s. Ram Sankar & 
Co., Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Ms. Saakshi Singh 
Rawat, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Kumar Shashank, Ms. Tatini Basu, 
Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Alok Kumar,
Kush Goel, Dhruva Kumar, Ajay Kuamr Agarwal, Sachin Jain, Vishal, 
Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Ms. Radhika Gautam, Mohammed Sadique 
T.A., Alim Anvar, Rahul Narang, Rao Vishwaja, Harshed Sundar, 
Nihar Dharmathikari, Niranjan Sahu, Umakant Misra, Mrs. Prabhati 
Nayak, Debabrata Dash, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Abhishek Gautam, 
Sanjay Sharma, Keshari Kumar Tiwari, Karan Kapur, Dr. Ravinder 
Kumar Singh, Ms. Kamayani Tripathi, Ajit Pathak, Yusuf, Sanpreet 
Singh Ajmani, Sandeep Malik, Amit Kumar, Vishal Gera, Pukhrambam 
Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Ms. 
Rajkumari Divyasana, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, 
Madhav Aggarwal, Ms. Anandita Rana, Durgesh Ramchandra Gupta, 
Vikas Verma, Mrs. Sapna Verma, Mayank Choudhary, Shafik Ahmed, 
Danish Saifi, Ms. Anju, Bibhav Kumar Singh, Satya Prakash Gautam, 
Shahid Akhtar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Gaurav Kumar, Petitioner-in-person
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1499
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Table of Contents*
A.
Background....................................................................... 4
B.
Issues................................................................................. 8
C.
Submissions...................................................................... 8
D.
Legal background............................................................ 13
i.
All India Bar Committee........................................... 13
ii.
Advocates Act: A Complete Code........................... 17
iii. Delegated legislation................................................ 20
iv.
Power to levy fees....................................................
22
v.
Regulatory fees......................................................... 25
E.
Fees charged by the SBCs............................................
28
F.
SBCs cannot charge enrolment fees beyond the 
mandate of Section 24(1)(f)............................................
31
i.
Legislative Scheme..................................................
31
ii.
Bar Councils cannot levy fees beyond the 
express stipulation of law.......................................
39
G.
All fees charged at the time of enrolment are 
‘enrolment fees’...............................................................
46
i.
Charges other than the enrolment fee cannot be 
a valid
pre-condition................................................. 48
ii.
Article 14: substantive equality and manifest 
arbitrariness..............................................................
51
iii. Article 19(1)(g): unreasonableness......................... 60
H.
Financial implications for the SBCs and the BCI ....... 65
I.
Conclusions...................................................................... 67
1.	
The proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution address a 
challenge to the validity of the enrolment fees charged by State Bar 
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1500
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Councils.1 The grievance is that the fees charged by the SBCs at 
the time of admission of persons on State rolls are more than the 
enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates 
Act 1961.2
A.	
Background 
2.	
The Advocates Act was enacted to amend and consolidate the law 
relating to legal practitioners and constitute a common Bar for the 
whole country. The enactment establishes the SBCs3 and the Bar 
Council of India.4 Section 6 of the Advocates Act entrusts myriad 
functions to the SBCs. These functions comprehend entry into and 
conduct of legal professionals, including admission of advocates to 
their rolls, preparation and maintenance of rolls, determination of 
cases of misconduct against advocates on the rolls and safeguarding 
the rights, privileges and interests of advocates. The statute empowers 
the SBCs to organize legal aid for the poor, promote and support 
law reform, conduct academic discourses, and publish journals and 
papers on matters of legal interest. 
3.	
The functions of the BCI have been enumerated under Section 7. 
These include laying down standards of professional conduct and 
etiquette for advocates, enunciating the procedure to be followed 
by its disciplinary committee and the disciplinary committee of the 
SBCs, safeguarding the rights, privileges, and interests of advocates, 
and promoting law reform. BCI is empowered to exercise general 
supervision and control over
the SBCs. BCI is also empowered to 
impart legal education and lay down standards for legal education 
in consultation with the universities whose degrees in law would be 
a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and, for that purpose, 
visit and inspect universities. 
4.	
Chapter III of the Advocates Act pertains to the admission and 
enrolment of advocates. Section 17 mandates the SBCs to prepare 
and maintain a roll of advocates. An application for admission as 
an advocate on a State roll is made to the SBCs.5 The SBCs are 
1	
“SBCs”
2	
“Advocates Act”
3	
Section 3, Advocates Act 
4	
“BCI”; Section 4, Advocates Act 
5	
Section 25, Advocates Act
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1501
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
required to issue a certificate of enrolment to every person whose 
name is enrolled in the roll of advocates.6 Section 24 prescribes 
the qualifications and conditions for a person to be admitted as an 
advocate.7 
5.	
To qualify to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, a person 
must:
(a)	 be a citizen of India;
(b)	 complete the age of twenty-one years;
6	
Section 22, Advocates Act 
7	
Section 24, Advocates Act [It reads:
24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this 
Act, and the rules made thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State 
roll, if he fulfils the following conditions, namely:—
(a)	 he is a citizen of India:
Provided that subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, a national of any other country 
may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are permitted to 
practise law in that other country;
(b)	 he has completed the age of twenty-one years;
(c)	 he has obtained a degree in law—
(i)	
before the [12th day of March, 1967], from any University in the territory of India; or
(ii)	
before the 15th day of August, 1947, from any University in any area which was 
comprised before that date within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 
1935; or
[(iii)	
after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as provided in sub-clause (iii-a), after undergoing 
a
three-year course of study in law from any University in India which is recognised for 
the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or
(iii-a)	
after undergoing a course of study in law, the duration of which is not less than two 
academic years commencing from the academic year 1967-68, or any earlier academic 
year from any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the 
Bar Council of India; or]
[(iv)	
in any other case, from any University outside the territory of India, if the degree is 
recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or]
[he is a barrister and is called to the Bar on or before the 31st day of December, 1976;  [or has 
passed the articled clerk’s examination or any other examination specified by the High Court 
at Bombay or Calcutta for enrolment as an attorney of that High Court;] or has obtained such 
other foreign qualification in law as is recognised by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of 
admission as an advocate under this Act];
(e)	 he fulfils such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council 
under this Chapter;
[(f)	 he has paid, in respect of the enrolment, stamp duty, if any, chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act, 
1899 (2 of 1899), and an enrolment fee payable to the State Bar Council of [six hundred rupees 
and to the Bar Council of India, one hundred and fifty rupees by way of a bank draft drawn in favour 
of that Council]:
Provided that
where such person is a member of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes 
and produces a certificate to that effect from such authority as may be prescribed, the enrolment 
fee payable by him to the State Bar Council shall be [one hundred rupees and to the Bar Council 
of India, twenty-five rupees].
[Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to have obtained a 
degree in law from a University in India on the date on which the results of the examination for that 
degree are published by the University on its notice-board or otherwise declaring him to have passed 
that examination.]]
1502
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(c)	
obtain a degree in law;
(d)	 fulfil such other conditions as may be specified in the rules 
made by the SBCs under Chapter III; and
(e)	 pay an enrolment fee of Rupees six hundred payable to the 
SBC and Rupees one hundred to the BCI along with any 
stamp duty, if chargeable. In the case of a person belonging 
to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the enrolment 
fee of Rupees one hundred is payable to the SBC and Rupees 
twenty-five to the BCI. 
6.	
The SBCs charge enrolment fees stipulated under Section 24(1)
(f) of the Advocates Act to admit law graduates on their State roll. 
At the time of enrolment, the SBCs also charge various “fees” and 
“charges” in addition to the enrolment fees in the form of library fund 
contributions, administration fees, identity card fees, welfare funds, 
training fees, processing fees, certificate fees, etc. The amount of 
fees charged by the SBCs differ significantly. This results in a situation 
where a law graduate has to pay somewhere between Rupees fifteen 
thousand to Rupees forty-two thousand (depending upon the SBC) 
as cumulative fees at the time of enrolment.
7.	
The petitioner instituted proceedings under Article 32 of the 
Constitution seeking a declaration that the fees charged by the SBCs 
at the time of enrolment violate Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates 
Act. In its order dated 10 April 2023, this Court issued notice while 
observing that the petitioner has raised
a significant issue about the 
enrolment fees charged by the SBCs. By an order dated 17 July 
2023, this Court transferred to itself the petitions dealing with similar 
issues from the High Court of Kerala,8 the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras at Madurai,9 and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.10 
Given this background, we now deal with the challenge to the validity 
of enrolment fees charged by the SBCs.
B.	
Issues
8.	
The petitions give rise to the following issues:
8	
Akshai M Sivan v. Bar Council of Kerala, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3068 of 2023
9	
Manimaran v. Bar Council of India, Writ Petition (MD) No. 8756 of 2023
10	
Amey Shejwal v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, Writ Petition No. 3795 of 2021
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1503
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
a.	
Whether the enrolment fees charged by the SBCs are in 
contravention of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act; and
b.	
Whether payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a 
pre-condition for enrolment.
C.	
Submissions
9.	
Mr Gaurav Kumar, the petitioner-in-person, made the following 
submissions:
a.	
Section 24(1)(f) expressly prescribes the enrolment fee 
chargeable by the SBCs and the BCI for persons to be admitted 
as an advocate. SBCs are charging exorbitant enrolment fees, 
often under different heads, in derogation of Section 24(1)(f);
b.	
Once there is a specific provision prescribing enrolment fees, 
the SBCs or the BCI through their delegated rule-making power 
cannot charge fees beyond the substantive provision. Therefore, 
the BCI and the SBCs cannot invoke their powers to frame rules 
under Section 49(1) and Section 28(1) of the Advocates Act 
respectively to prescribe enrolment fees that are at variance 
with Section 24(1)(f); 
c.	
The term ‘subject to the provisions of this Act’ at the beginning of 
Section 24 has been misconstrued to permit charging enrolment 
fees beyond the statutory prescription. It only means that other 
provisions of the Act must be considered while deciding the 
‘eligibility’ of law graduates to be admitted as advocates on 
the state rolls; 
d.	
Section 6(3) of the Advocates Act prescribes how the SBCs 
may constitute ‘funds’ to fulfil their functions under Section
6(2). 
It does not allow imposing additional charges under different 
heads along with the enrolment fees or charging exorbitant fees 
as a mandatory condition for persons to get enrolled;
e.	
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. It also makes the process of enrolment 
coercive, improper, unjust and unfair, violating Article 14 of 
the Constitution; and
1504
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
f.	
The Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act 2001 enacted by Parliament 
allows for the collection of funds through various sources for 
the welfare of advocates. This amount does not need to be 
collected by levying exorbitant enrolment fees. 
10.	 Mr Manan Kumar Mishra, senior counsel made the following 
submissions on behalf of the BCI:  
a.	
Bar Councils require adequate operational funds to effectively 
discharge their functions. They require funds for day-to-day 
functioning including administrative expenses, staff salaries, 
infrastructure maintenance and technological advancements. 
Inadequate funding will hinder the ability of SBCs to comply 
with their statutory obligations under the Advocates Act; 
b.	
The enrollment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) was fixed 
by the legislature in 1993 and has not been modified since. It 
fails to account for inflation and is not adequate to meet current 
financial demands. Unlike other professional bodies that levy 
an annual subscription fee on members, SBCs rely on the 
one-time enrolment fee; 
c.	
The fees charged by SBCs at the time of enrollment include 
additional expenses incurred in the enrolment process along 
with the enrolment fee prescribed by the Act, such as online 
data processing fee, identity card fee and verification process 
fee. Therefore, the fees charged do not violate Section 24(1)
(f) and are linked to the services being rendered by the SBCs; 
d.	
Section
6(2) lays down the functions of the SBCs and places 
enrolment of advocates exclusively within their domain. An 
entity on whom statutory powers or duties have been conferred 
impliedly possesses incidental powers necessary for its effective 
exercise; 
e.	
Section 15 of the Act provides SBCs with the power to make 
rules to carry out the purposes of Chapter II of the Act (including 
Section 6). This general power to frame Rules includes the 
power to levy charges for services rendered under the Act;
f.	
Merely because a charge is levied at the time of ‘enrollment’ does 
not make it an enrollment fee. The ‘enrollment fee’ charged by 
most SBCs under Section 24(1)(f) continues to be six hundred
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1505
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
rupees and the remaining amount is usually attributable to 
additional charges for other services. SBCs may be directed to 
comply with Section 24(1)(f) while charging an ‘enrollment fee’. 
But this must be distinguished from other charges levied at the 
time of enrolment. Such charges are permissible provided they 
pass the test of quid pro quo in terms of services rendered in 
return for the charges levied; and
g.	
The BCI has the power to frame rules to charge reasonable 
fees under Section 49(1) (ah) and Section 49(h). The term ‘any 
matter’ used in Section 49(h) also includes matters relating to 
the enrolment of an advocate. In exercise of this power and 
to ensure uniformity, the BCI has placed on record before this 
Court, the draft Uniform Rules (For Enrolment and Other Fees 
To Be Charged By The State Bar Councils) 202311 laying down a 
uniform fee to be charged by all SBCs at the time of enrollment. 
11.	 In view of the above submissions, the BCI has submitted that this 
Court exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to implement 
a uniform enrolment fee structure that adequately caters to the 
financial requirements of the SBCs until legislative amendments are 
made to the Advocates Act. Additionally, it has urged this Court to 
direct the Union Government to revise the enrolment fee prescribed 
in Section 24(1)(f). 
12.	 The SBCs have filed counter affidavits justifying the imposition of
the fees charged by them at the time of enrollment. In essence, they 
contend that (i) the statutorily prescribed enrolment fee in Section 
24(1)(f) fails to account for the current economic situation; (ii) the SBCs 
are charging fees in addition to the statutorily prescribed enrolment 
fee in return for services such as library fee and ID card fee under 
their rule-making powers under Section 15 and Section 28; and (iii) 
the additional charges are essential to enable the SBCs to fulfil their 
statutory functions. In order to fulfil these statutory functions, the 
SBCs inter alia run various welfare programs, insurance schemes, 
seminars and training programmes, which require adequate funding.
13.	 Mr Raghenth Basant, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners 
before the Kerala High Court assailed the levy of enrollment fees by 
11	
“BCI Draft Enrolment Rules”
1506
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the Bar Council of Kerala in excess of the fee prescribed in Section 
24(1)(f). Mr Basant made the following submissions: 
a.	
Rules prescribed by the SBCs under general provisions such 
as Section 24(1)(e) cannot be with respect to the enrolment 
fee which has been specifically dealt with in Section 24(1)(f); 
b.	
Rule-making powers cannot be used to frame rules contrary to 
the Advocates Act, especially in the absence of any provision 
stipulating that the BCI or the SBCs are entitled to increase 
the statutory enrolment fee as they deem fit;
c.	
The 1993 amendment which increased the statutory enrolment 
fee to its present form indicates that Parliament has been 
conscious of the need to increase the enrolment fee as and 
when required and is the only competent authority to carry out 
such changes; and
d.	
Other fees charged by the Bar Council of Kerala, such as the 
sums charged under Rule 40 of Section IVA under Chapter II 
of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules12 cannot be made 
a condition precedent for enrolment. Rule 40 of the BCI Rules 
prescribes that the payment be made by an advocate on the rolls 
of the SBC and thus, it cannot be a pre-requisite for enrolment.
D.	
Legal background
i.	
All India Bar Committee
14.	 The establishment of the High Courts by Letters Patent in the 
Presidencies of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras brought all courts 
in the territories of British India under a unified system. The
Letters 
Patent also allowed the High Courts to enroll advocates, vakils, 
and attorneys. The Legal Practitioners Act 1879 empowered the 
High Courts not established by royal charters to make rules for the 
qualifications and admission of persons seeking to be advocates of 
the Court.13 Initially, barristers and solicitors predominated the Original 
Side practice in the High Courts.14 Gradually, both advocates and 
vakils (who were Indian non-barristers) could act and plead before 
12	
“BCI Rules”
13	
Section 41, Legal Practitioners Act 1879
14	
Report of the All-India Bar Committee (1953) 15
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1507
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
all High Courts, except for the Calcutta High Court which excluded 
vakils from the Original Side.15 This distinction between advocates 
and vakils led to the demand for the creation of an all-India Bar.
15.	 To give effect to this demand, the colonial legislature enacted the 
Indian Bar Councils Act 192616 “to provide for the constitution and 
incorporation of Bar Councils and to confer powers and impose 
duties on such Bar Councils.” Section 3 prescribed the constitution 
of a Bar Council for every High Court. Section 8 pertained to the 
admission and enrolment of Advocates. It authorized the High Courts 
to prepare and maintain a roll of advocates. Section 9 empowered 
the Bar Councils to make rules regulating the admission of persons 
to be advocates of the High Court including the charging of fees 
payable to the Bar Councils in respect of enrolment. Thus, the 
1926 Act empowered the Bar Councils to prescribe fees in respect 
of enrolment. However, the 1926 Act did not substantially fulfil the 
demands of the Indian legal practitioners for an all-India Bar. In 1951, 
the Government set up the All-India Bar Committee to inquire into 
this issue and provide a feasible legal solution.
16.	 The Committee recommended setting up of the SBCs and an All-
India Bar Council, uniform minimum qualification for admission to 
the roll of Advocates, a common roll of Advocates maintained by the 
respective SBCs, and
permitting the enrolled advocates to practice 
in any court in India, including the Supreme Court. The Committee’s 
observations on the finances of the BCI and the SBCs are relevant:
“It is obvious that in order to carry on its duties the All-India 
Bar Council and the State Bar Councils shall require funds. 
At present the Advocates, at the time of their enrolment, 
pay a certain amount ranging from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 100/- 
which goes to the Bar Council besides Rs. 250/- to Rs. 
1,125/- which goes to the State. Entrants to the professions 
other than the legal profession are not required to pay 
any amount to the State as and by way of admission fee. 
Persons exercising any profession, calling or vocation 
including Advocates in several places have to pay a licence 
fee, but there is no reason why there should be a taxation 
15	
Ibid
16	
“1926 Act”
1508
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
by the State at the time of enrolment of Advocates only. 
The Committee suggests that an Advocate at the time 
of his admission shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the 
State Bar Council to which he makes his application 
and nothing should be payable to the State. This 
amount may be paid in a lump sum or an Advocate 
may elect to pay annual amounts of Rs. 50/- with an 
option to pay Rs. 500/- at any time, amounts already 
paid not being deducted. Those Vakils and Pleaders 
who according to the recommendations of the Committee 
become eligible to be enrolled as Advocates may pay Rs. 
500/- in lump sum or an annual amount of Rs. 50/- with 
the option mentioned above. Each State Bar Council shall 
for the first five years contribute 40% of the enrolment fees 
received by it to the All-India Bar Council. At the end of 
the first 5 years the proportion of the contribution may be 
reconsidered.”17
(emphasis added)
17.	 The Committee was aware of the fact that the SBCs will require funds 
to carry out their functions and duties. Consequently, the Committee 
recommended that an advocate should pay an enrolment fee of 
Rupees five hundred to the SBCs “at the time of his admission”. The 
Committee suggested that this amount could either be paid as a lump 
sum or on a yearly instalment basis. In 1958, the Law Commission 
of India observed that the amount of Rupees five hundred proposed 
by the All-India Bar Committee was excessive. It
instead suggested 
an enrolment fee of Rupees one hundred twenty-five.18
18.	 In 1959, the Legal Practitioners Bill 1959 was introduced in 
Parliament. The Bill was referred to a Joint Committee of Parliament 
17	
All-India Bar Committee (supra) 40
18	
Law Commission of India, Fourteenth Report, Reform of Judicial Administration 1958 (Volume 1) 575. 
[It observed: “It appears to us that the amount of Rs. 500 proposed by the Committee is excessive. At 
present various State bar Councils are receiving payments which range from Rs. 50 to Rs. 100 from 
each entrant to the profession and so far we have been able to ascertain, not only are the amounts 
received sufficient to finance their activities but some of these Councils have accumulated out of these 
and other receipts substantial amounts which have been invested by them. The creation of the All India 
Bar Council envisaged by the Bar Committee will no doubt involve substantial additional expenditure. 
Considering all aspects of the matter, we suggest that an enrolment fee of Rs 125 may be charged by 
the State Bar Council from each entrant out of which Rs. 25 may be paid by the State Bar Council to the 
All India Bar Council.”]
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1509
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
which submitted its recommendations in 1960. The Joint Committee 
recommended renaming the proposed enactment as the Advocates 
Act because there would only be one class of legal practitioners 
in India, that is, advocates. Importantly, the Joint Committee 
recommended reducing the proposed enrolment fee from Rupees five 
hundred to Rupees two-hundred and fifty. The aim behind reducing 
the enrollment fee was “to bring in as many eligible lawyers within 
its [the legislation’s] fold as possible.”19
19.	 The recommendation of the Joint Committee was accepted by 
Parliament and incorporated under Section 24(1)(f). During the 
Parliamentary debates preceding the passage of the Advocates Act, 
many members suggested that the enrolment fee of Rupees two-
hundred fifty was exorbitant.20 It was suggested that the enrolment 
fee should be further reduced or abolished altogether.21 The then 
Minister of Law (Mr A K Sen) justified the rationale for prescribing 
Rupees two hundred fifty as enrolment fee thus:
“So far the Bar Council is concerned, a fee of Rs. 250 is 
not very unreasonable especially having regard to the fact 
that when we are setting up an autonomous body, we must 
give it enough funds to make it effective and useful. If it 
is to discharge all the functions given to it under this 
statute, then it requires funds and therefore Rs. 250 
per entrant is not too much of a fee to pay when the 
Bar Council is
going to function in so many different 
ways.”22
(emphasis added)
The statement of the Law Minister indicates that the enrolment fee 
was meant to allow the SBCs to effectively discharge “all functions” 
under the Advocates Act. 
19	
The Legal Practitioners Bill 1959, Report of the Joint Committee (28 March 1960) xiii. (Raghubir Sahai 
and Khuswant Rai, the members of the Joint Committee noted: “The Constitution of an All India Bar was 
demand of the country since long and this Bill has been brought forward to meet it. Its aim would be 
to bring in as many eligible lawyers within its fold as possible. That is why the enrolment fee has been 
reduced from Rs. 500/- originally proposed in the Bill to Rs. 250/-. It would have been much better if this 
could be reduced to Rs. 125/- as suggested by the Law Commission and the stamp duty would have 
been done away with altogether.”)
20	
Shri Shankaraiya, Legal Practitioners Bill, Lok Sabha (27 April 1961) 14162
21	
Legal Practitioners Bill, Lok Sabha (27 April 1961) 14164 
22	
Rajya Sabha, Advocates Bill 1961 (4 May 1961) 2125.
1510
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
20.	 In 1973, the enrolment fee payable by the members of the Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes was reduced to Rupees one hundred 
twenty-five. Subsequently, Section 24(1)(f) was amended in 1993 
to revise the fees payable by general candidates from Rupees two 
hundred fifty to Rupees seven hundred fifty, without increasing the 
fees payable by candidates belonging to the SC and ST category. 
The enrolment fees were increased given the representations made 
by the Bar Councils.23 This indicates that Parliament is aware and 
responsive to the financial problems faced by the Bar Councils.24
ii.	
Advocates Act: A Complete Code
21.	 In O N Mohindroo v. Bar Council of Delhi,25 a Constitution Bench 
held that the Advocates Act was enacted by Parliament under the 
legislative field of Entries 7726 and 7827 of List I. It was observed that 
the object of the Advocates Act is to constitute one common Bar for 
the whole of the country and to provide machinery for its regulated 
functioning. It was further observed that the expression “persons 
entitled to practice” under Entries 77 and 78 of List I includes within 
its scope the determination or prescription of qualifications and 
conditions entitling a person to practice as an advocate before the 
Supreme Court or the High Courts.28
22.	 In Bar Council of U P v. State of U P,29 the issue before a three-
Judge Bench was whether the State legislature could impose stamp 
duty on
the certificate of enrolment issued by the SBCs. It was held 
that the enrolment fee payable under Section 24(1)(f) is covered by 
Entry 96 in List I. Concerning the imposition of stamp duty, it was 
23	
Shri H R Bhardwaj, Minister of State in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Lok Sabha 
(26 November 1992) 451. [The minister stated: “The Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils 
represented that the expenses involved in the administration of the Bar Council of India and the State Bar 
Councils are growing every year and that it has become necessary to revise the enrolment fee upwards 
from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 750/- without disturbing the fee payable in case of persons belonging to Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes.”]
24	
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. Union of India, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 251 [3] : 
25	
[1968] 2 SCR 709 : 1968 SCC OnLine SC 3
26	
Entry 77, List I, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India. [It reads: 77. Constitution, organization, 
jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court (including contempt of such Court), and the fees taken 
therein; persons entitled to practice before the Supreme Court”]
27	
Entry 78, List I, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India. [It reads: 78. Constitution and organization 
(including vacations) of the High Court except provisions as to officers and servants of High Court; 
persons entitled to practice before High Courts.]
28	
O N Mohindroo (supra) [9]; Bar Council of U P v. State of U P (1973) 1 SCC 261 [11]
29	
[1973] 2 SCR 1073 : (1973) 1 SCC 261
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1511
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
held that stamp duty payable on the certificate of enrolment cannot be 
regarded as a condition prescribed for enrolment because it pertains 
to the domain of taxation.30 It was held that the State Legislature 
was competent to levy stamp duty under Entry 44 of List III of the 
Seventh Schedule.
23.	 The Advocates Act was enacted to implement the recommendations 
of the All-India Bar Committee. According to the Statement of Objects 
and Reasons, the main features of the enactment are:
(i)	
establishment of an All-India Bar Council and a common roll of 
advocates, and advocates on the common roll having a right 
to practice in any part of the country and any Court, including 
the Supreme Court;
(ii)	
integration of the bar into a single class of legal practitioners 
known as advocates;
(iii)	 prescription of a uniform qualification for the admission of 
persons to be advocates;
(iv)	 division of advocates into senior advocates and other advocates 
based on merit; and
(v)	
creation of autonomous Bar Councils, one for the whole of India 
and one for each State.
24.	 The 1926 Act did not prescribe any qualifications to be possessed 
by persons applying for admission as advocates. Under the 1926 
Act, the Bar Councils prescribed qualifications, but the enrollment 
was carried out by the High Courts. Under the Advocates Act, the 
enrolment process is completely undertaken by the SBCs. The SBCs 
are mandated to maintain
and prepare a State roll and admit persons 
as advocates on the roll if they fulfil the statutory prescriptions, along 
with any other qualifications laid down by the SBCs. Section 24(1) of 
the Advocates Act statutorily engrafts the minimum qualifications to be 
possessed by advocates seeking enrolment. The provision specifies 
the qualifications to be possessed by persons to be admitted as an 
advocate on a State roll. Additionally, the SBCs can also specify 
other conditions by rules. 
30	
Bar Council of U P (supra) [14]
1512
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
25.	 Section 24A provides that no person shall be admitted on a State 
roll if he is: (i) convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude; (ii) 
convicted of an offence under the provisions of the Untouchability 
(Offences) Act 1955; and (iii) dismissed or removed from employment 
or office under State on any charge involving moral turpitude. Section 
25 provides that an application for admission as an advocate shall 
be made to the SBC within whose jurisdiction the applicant proposes 
to practice. Section 26 mandates the SBCs to refer every application 
for admission to their enrolment committee for decision. The SBCs 
are also empowered to remove the names of advocates from the 
State roll.31 Section 28 empowers the SBCs to make rules for the 
admission and enrolment of advocates.
26.	 The provisions of the Advocates Act indicate that it provides a 
complete machinery32 to deal with the admission and enrolment of 
advocates. The SBCs are vested with sufficient powers to ensure 
effectual and complete implementation of the enactment. In Dr 
Haniraj L Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, this 
Court held that the Advocates Act provides a complete code for 
regulating the legal education and professional qualifications of an 
aspirant seeking entry into the legal profession.33
iii.	
Delegated legislation
27.	 The basic principle underlying the concept of delegated legislation 
is that the legislature cannot
directly exert its will in every detail.34 
It lays down the legislative policy and delegates the subsidiary 
or ancillary powers to the delegated or subordinate authorities to 
carry out the legislative policy.35 It is now a settled legal principle 
that the legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative functions 
to the delegated authority.36 The legislature can entrust subsidiary 
or ancillary legislation to the delegate. Before such delegation, the 
legislature should enunciate the policy and the principles for the 
31	
Section 26A, Advocates Act 
32	
See Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 3 SCC 1 [80]
33	
(1996) 3 SCC 342 [17]
34	
Mahachandra Prasad Singh (Dr.) v. Bihar Legislative Council (2004) 8 SCC 747 [13]
35	
In re Delhi Laws Act 1912 (1951) SCC 568 [22]
36	
Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 27 [4]
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1513
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
guidance of the delegated authority.37 As a corollary, the delegated 
authority must carry out its rule-making functions within the framework 
of the law. The delegated legislation must be consistent with the law 
under which it is made and cannot go beyond the limits of policy 
and standards laid down in the law.38
28.	 Although delegated legislation enjoys the presumption of 
constitutionality, it does not enjoy the same immunity as the parent 
legislation. It is now well-established39 that delegated legislation can 
be challenged on the following grounds:
(i)	
lack of legislative competence to make delegated legislation;
(ii)	
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution;
(iii)	 violation of any provision of the Constitution;
(iv)	 failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or 
exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act;
(v)	
repugnance to any other enactment; and
(vi)	 manifest arbitrariness.
29.	 Modern legislation often contains provisions enabling the delegate of 
the legislature to frame subordinate legislation. The statutory provision 
for delegation is often couched in general terms empowering the 
delegate the power to frame rules “to carry out the purposes of this 
Act” or a particular segment of the statute contained in a Chapter. 
The general provision is then followed by a provision enumerating 
specific matters on which the delegate may frame
rules. A similar 
legislative scheme is reflected in Sections 15 and 28 of the Advocates 
Act.  Where a rule-making power is conferred upon the delegate in 
general terms, a subsequent enumeration of matters on which the 
delegate may frame rules is illustrative and does not limit the scope 
of the general power.40 The enumerated matters in such a situation 
37	
Harishankar Bagla v. State of MP (1954) 1 SCC 978 [12]
38	
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 
13 [13], [71]
39	
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 [77]; State of Tamil 
Nadu v. P Krishnamurthy (2006) 4 SCC 517 [15]
40	
Azfal Ullah v. State of U P, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 76 [13]; Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. 
Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 75 [18].
1514
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
provide guidelines for the delegated authority while framing rules in 
exercise of the general power.41
iv.	
Power to levy fees
30.	 Article 265 of the Constitution stipulates that no tax shall be levied 
or collected except by the authority of law. Article 366(28) defines 
taxation or tax to include the imposition of a tax or impost, whether 
general, local or special. 
31.	 In CIT v. McDowell and Co. Ltd.,42 a three-Judge Bench of this 
Court enunciated the principles for interpreting Article 265 read with 
Article 366(28):
“21. “Tax”, “duty”, “cess” or “fee” constituting a class 
denotes various kinds of imposts by State in its sovereign 
power of taxation to raise revenue for the State. Within 
the expression of each specie each expression denotes 
different kinds of impost depending on the purpose for 
which they are levied. This power can be exercised in any 
of its manifestations only under any law authorising levy 
and collection of tax as envisaged under Article 265 which 
uses only the expression that no “tax” shall be levied and 
collected except authorised by law. It in its elementary 
meaning conveys that to support a tax legislative action is 
essential, it cannot be levied and collected in the absence 
of any legislative sanction by exercise of executive power 
of State under Article 73 by the Union or Article 162 by 
the State.
22. Under Article 366(28) “Taxation” has been defined 
to include the imposition
of any tax or impost whether 
general or local or special and tax shall be construed 
accordingly. “Impost” means compulsory levy. The well-
known and well-settled characteristic of “tax” in its wider 
sense includes all imposts. Imposts in the context have 
following characteristics:
41	
D K Trivedi and Sons v. State of Gujarat, 1986 Supp SCC 20 [33]
42	
[2009] 8 SCR 983 : (2009) 10 SCC 755
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1515
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
(i) The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty.
(ii) “Law” in the context of Article 265 means an Act of 
legislature and cannot comprise an executive order or 
rule without express statutory authority.
(iii) The term “tax” under Article 265 read with Article 
366(28) includes imposts of every kind viz. tax, duty, cess 
or fees.
(iv) As an incident of sovereignty and in the nature of 
compulsory exaction, a liability founded on principle of 
contract cannot be a “tax” in its technical sense as an 
impost, general, local or special.”
32.	 The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution differentiates between 
taxing entries and general entries. Subjects pertaining to the levy of 
taxes must be traced to specific taxing entries enumerated in either 
List I or List II.43 In addition, Parliament has the residuary power 
under Article 248 read with Entry 97 of List I to legislate on matters 
not enumerated in List II or List III, including on matters of taxation. 
The power of the legislature to levy fees is dealt with under separate 
heads: (i) Entry 96 of List I empowers Parliament to levy fees in 
respect of any matters in List I; (ii) Entry 66 of List II empowers 
the State legislatures to levy fees in respect of any matters in List 
II; and (iii) Entry 47 of List III empowers both Parliament and the 
State legislatures (subject to Article 254) to levy fees for any matter 
enumerated in List III. Parliament has
prescribed an enrolment fee 
under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act under Entry 96 of List I.
33.	 The legislature can delegate its power to levy fees.44 Since a fee 
is an impost and a compulsory exaction of money, the power of a 
delegate to levy fees must flow from the express authority of law. 
In Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar 
Jayantikumar Pasawalla45 this Court observed:
“7. […] In our view, such power of imposition of tax and/or 
fee by delegated authority must be very specific and there 
is no scope for implied authority for imposition of such tax 
43	
M P V Sundararamier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 22 
44	
Kandivali Coop. Industrial Estate v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2015) 11 SCC 161 [25]
45	
[1992] 3 SCR 328 : (1992) 3 SCC 285 [7]
1516
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
or fee. It appears to us that the delegated authority must 
act strictly within the parameters of the authority delegated 
to it under the Act and it will not be proper to bring the 
theory of implied intent or the concept of incidental and 
ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal power.”
34.	 The principles that flow from the above discussion are: (i) a fee is an 
impost in terms of Article 366(28); (ii) the expression “tax” occurring 
in Article 265 means all imposts, including fees and therefore any 
fee must be levied by the authority of a valid law; (iii)  fees being 
a compulsory exaction of money, the power to levy fees cannot be 
implied; (iv) delegation of the power to levy fees to a delegate of 
the legislature should be specifically provided for under the parent 
legislation; and (v) the delegate must strictly act within the parameters 
of the legislative policy laid down by the parent legislation when 
levying fees and taxes.
v.	
Regulatory fees
35.	 Article 110 of the Constitution, though in a different context, recognizes 
that fees imposed under the authority of law may include (i) fees 
for licences; and (ii) fees for service.46 In Commissioner, Hindu 
Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha 
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt,47 a Constitution Bench explained the 
concept of licence fees thus:
“47. […] In the first class of cases, the Government 
simply grants a permission or privilege
to a person to 
do something, which otherwise that person would not 
be competent to do and extracts fees either heavy or 
moderate from that person in return for the privilege that is 
conferred. A most common illustration of this type of cases 
is furnished by the licence fees for motor vehicles. Here 
the costs incurred by the Government in maintaining an 
46	
Article 110(2), Constitution of India. [It reads: 
“110. Definition of “Money Bills”-
[…]
(2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason only that it provides for the imposition of 
fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees for licences or fees for services 
rendered, or by reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of 
any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes.”]
47	
[1954] 1 SCR 1005 : (1954) 1 SCC 412
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1517
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
office or bureau for the granting of licences may be very 
small and the amount of imposition that is levied is based 
really not upon the costs incurred by the Government 
but upon the benefit that the individual receives. In such 
cases, according to all the writers on public finance, the 
tax element is predominant, and if the money paid by the 
licence-holders goes for the upkeep of roads and other 
matters of general public utility, the licence fee cannot but 
be regarded as a tax”
In Shirur Mutt (supra), it was held that a fee is money taken by the 
Government “as the return for the work done or services rendered.”48 
Therefore, a fee was characterised by an element of quid pro quo 
between the payer and the public authority. 
36.	 In a series of subsequent decisions, this Court held that a levy can 
be regarded as a fee if it has a “reasonable relationship” with services 
rendered by the public authority.49 The traditional view that there must 
be an actual quid pro quo for a fee has not been applied in the strict 
sense in subsequent decisions of this Court. It has been held that 
the relationship between the levy of a fee and services rendered is 
one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude.50 
37.	 In Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema,51 a Constitution Bench 
observed that licence fees are not necessarily charged in return for 
services rendered. This Court referred to a Privy
Council decision52 
which inter alia held that licence fees could be charged to defray 
the costs of administering the local regulations. In Secunderabad 
Hyderabad Hotel Owners’ Association v. Hyderabad Municipal 
48	
Shirur Mutt (supra) [48]
49	
H H Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiar v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, 
[1963] Supp. 2 SCR 302 [18]. [It was observed: “18. […] A levy in the nature of a fee does no cease to 
be of that character merely because there is an element of compulsion or coerciveness present in it, not 
is it a postulate of a fee that it must have direct relation to the actual services rendered by the authority 
to each individual who obtains the benefit of service. If with a view to provide a specific service, levy is 
imposed by law and expenses for maintaining the service are met out of the amounts collected there 
being a reasonable relation between the levy and the expenses incurred for rendering the service, the 
levy would be in the nature of a fee and not in the nature of a tax.”]; Indian Mica Micanite Industries v. 
State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 236 [15].
50	
Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab (1980) 1 SCC 416 [23]; Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A 
P (1983) 4 SCC 353 [31].
51	
[1965] 2 SCR 477 : 1964 SCC OnLine SC 65 [8]
52	
George Walkem Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board, 1938 AC 708.
1518
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Corporation,53 this Court observed that licence fees could broadly 
be classified as either regulatory or compensatory. It was observed 
that licence fees are regulatory when the activities for which a licence 
is given are required to be regulated or controlled. It was further 
held that the fees charged for regulation of activities could be validly 
classified as fees although no service is rendered. A regulatory fee 
such as a licence fee enables authorities to supervise, regulate, and 
monitor the activity related to which the licence has been issued and 
to secure proper enforcement of the legal provisions.54
38.	 The principle which follows from the above discussion is that the 
State grants a licence to regulate a particular trade, business, or 
profession.55 These regulatory activities entail a duty on behalf of 
the State or its instrumentalities to supervise, regulate, and monitor 
that particular trade, business, or profession. Because such activities 
require the State to expend public resources, the State can charge 
licence fees to defray the administrative costs. The enrolment fee 
stipulated by Section 24(1)(f) of Advocates Act meets the characteristic 
of a regulatory fee.
39.	 Having encapsulated the broad gist of the historical and legal context, 
we now deal with the issues arising in these petitions. 
E.	
Fees charged by the SBCs
40.	 Presently, the SBCs charge different fees from advocates at the time
of enrolment. Most SBCs charge an enrolment fee in addition to other 
miscellaneous fees. For instance, the Bar Council of Maharashtra 
and Goa is charging library fees, certificate fees, administration 
fees, identity card fees, training fees, and welfare fund contributions. 
Resultantly, the enrolment fee and the other fees charged by the 
SBC amounts to Rupees fifteen thousand for general candidates 
and Rupees fourteen thousand five hundred for candidates from 
SC and ST category.
41.	 The Bar Council of Odisha is charging Rupees forty-two thousand 
one hundred from advocates at the time of enrolment. In their 
counter affidavit, the SBC concedes the fact that Section 24(1)(f) 
53	
[1999] 1 SCR 143 : (1999) 2 SCC 274 [9]
54	
Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd v. State of U P (1997) 2 SCC 715 [18]; A P Paper Mills Ltd. v. Government 
of A P (2000) 8 SCC 167 [24].
55	
Indian Mica Micanite Industries v. State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 236 [14]
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1519
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
only mandates the SBCs to charge Rupees seven hundred fifty in 
total at the time of enrolment. However, the SBC sought to justify 
charging the enhanced enrolment fee and other fees from the 
advocates “having regard to the functions of the Odisha Bar Council” 
under the Advocates Act. The SBC further claims that in line with 
its functions under Section 6, it has created various welfare funds 
for the benefit of advocates on its roll and utilizes the contributions 
received from the fees towards this end. Resultantly, the SBC is 
charging Rupees twenty-six thousand nine hundred as a one-time 
deposit to enable an advocate to avail of a lifetime benefit of various 
welfare schemes. This amount is in addition to the enrolment fee 
of Rupees six thousand, processing/ development fees of Rupees 
seven thousand, and other miscellaneous charges. The SBC justified 
charging Rupees six thousand as the enrolment fee on the basis of 
a BCI resolution dated 26 June 2013. The BCI resolution reads thus:
“The council is of the unanimous view that the enrolment 
fee fixed earlier is too less amount and it has never been 
revised after the year of 1961. The council resolves that 
the enrolment fee per candidate will be Rs 6000 and for 
SC/ST Candidates, it should be Rs 3000. This provision 
is applicable throughout the country and out of this as 
per the provisions of the Act, 20% amount is to be sent 
to the Bar Council of
India by all the State Bar Councils. 
These rules will come into effect the day it is published 
in the Gazette of India. Soon after the publication the 
office is directed to communicate this resolution to all the 
State Bar Councils and all the Bar Associations of the 
country. It is made clear that this resolution is confined 
to the enrolment fee only and the other charges fixed or 
prescribed by the different State Bar Councils would be 
applicable as of their own suitability.”56
In view of the above resolution, the BCI directed all the SBCs to 
charge the revised enrolment fee.57
42.	 All the SBCs justify charging the miscellaneous fees for the following 
reasons: (i) the miscellaneous fees are one-time fees paid by the 
56	
Resolution No. 32 of 2013, Gazette Notification dated 28 June 2013.
57	
BCI. D 7114/2016(C1) dated 22 December 2016
1520
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
advocates to the Bar Councils; (ii) the fees are charged as a one-time 
lump sum because advocates do not pay the fees periodically after 
their enrolment;  (iii) the SBCs do not get any financial assistance 
from the Government and have to sustain their operations, including 
payment of salaries to their employees, from the amount collected 
by way of enrolment fee and miscellaneous fees; and (iv) the lump 
sum fees are intended to defray the expenditure incurred by each 
SBC while discharging myriad statutory functions including continuing 
legal education and welfare schemes for advocates. 
43.	 The Bar Council of Manipur has stated that it meets all its expenses 
including the staff salary and office maintenance from the enrolment 
fees. The SBC charges Rupees sixteen thousand six hundred fifty as 
enrolment fees from general candidates. Out of this, nine thousand 
five hundred is allowed to be used for office expenses while the 
balance is deposited into other accounts and used for specified 
purposes. According to the SBC, the average annual enrolment in 
Manipur is of a hundred advocates. Therefore, the total enrolment 
fee collected by the SBC is Rupees nine lakh fifty thousand against 
the overall annual expense of Rupees nine lakh.
44.	 The legal profession is a serious occupation and requires advocates 
to maintain exemplary conduct both inside and outside the court.58 
The SBCs and the BCI perform the important
function of regulating 
and maintaining the standards of conduct required from advocates. 
The Bar Councils conduct activities related to providing advocates 
knowledge about the substantive and procedural aspects of law. Many 
SBCs have published books and manuals and assisted members 
of the legal profession in acquiring the practical skills required for 
the successful pursuit of a career as an advocate. The Bar Councils 
conduct welfare schemes for advocates. During the period of the 
Covid pandemic and even at other times, the Bar Councils have 
stepped in to provide relief to advocates and their families. In doing 
so many Bar Councils have provided significant aid to advocates. 
The enrolment fee and other miscellaneous fees are the only source 
of income available to the SBCs to perform their functions under 
the Advocates Act and implement welfare schemes for advocates. 
58	
In Re Sanjiv Dutta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (1995) 3 SCC 619 [20]; 
Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil v. Bar Council of Gujarat (2017) 5 SCC 465 [39]
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1521
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
However, the imposition of the enrolment fee and other miscellaneous 
fees by the SBCs must be consistent with the Constitution and the 
scheme of the Advocates Act. 
F.	
SBCs cannot charge enrolment fees beyond the mandate 
of Section 24(1)(f) 
i.	
Legislative Scheme
45.	 Parliament has enacted the Advocates Act under Article 246 read 
with Entries 77 and 78 of List I to deal with legal practitioners and 
their qualifications, enrolment, right to practice, and discipline. The 
Advocates Act establishes the SBCs and the BCI to create a common 
all-India bar. The SBCs have been entrusted with the function of 
admitting persons as advocates on the State roll. Persons who are 
admitted on the roll are entitled to the right to practice in all courts, 
tribunals, or authority throughout the territory of India.59
46.	 Sections 15 and 28 of the Advocates Act vests a rule-making power 
in the SBCs. The rule-making power under Section 15 is available 
to both the SBCs and the BCI. Section 15(1) specifies that a Bar 
Council “may make rules to carry out the purposes of this Chapter.” 
A Bar Council can make rules providing for the election of members, 
Chairman and Vice-Chairman, filing of casual vacancies, constitution 
of one or more funds to give financial assistance or legal aid or 
advice, organization of legal aid, etc. Section 15(3) provides that 
no rule made by the SBCs shall have effect unless it is approved 
by
the BCI. Thus, the scope of the rule-making powers of the SBCs 
and the BCI under Section 15 pertains to the subjects in Chapter 
II. Other than Section 15, Chapter II comprises of Sections 3 to 14: 
(a)	 Section 3 provides for establishment of the SBCs;
(b)	 Section 4 establishes the BCI;
(c)	
Section 5 provides that every Bar Council should be a body 
corporate;
(d)	 Section 6 lays down the functions of the SBCs;
(e)	 Section 7 lays down the functions of the BCI;
59	
Section 30, Advocates Act
1522
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(f)	
Section 7A pertains to membership in international bodies;
(g)	 Section 8 specifies terms of office of the members of the SBCs;
(h)	 Section 8A talks about constitution of a special committee in 
the absence of an election;
(i)	
Section 9 deals with disciplinary committees; 
(j)	
Section 9A talks about constitution of legal aid committees;
(k)	
Section 10 provides for constitution of committees other than 
disciplinary committees;
(l)	
Section 10A pertains to transaction of business by Bar Councils 
and committees;
(m)	 Section 11 allows Bar Councils to appoint staff;
(n)	 Section 12 mandates Bar Councils to maintain books of account 
for audit;
(o)	
Section 13 provides that vacancies in Bar Councils cannot be a 
ground to challenge the validity of acts done by a Bar Council; and
(p)	 Section 14 pertains to challenges to elections to Bar Councils. 
47.	 Chapter II establishes Bar Councils and delineates their functions 
and responsibilities. The provisions of the Chapter II also empower 
Bar Councils to constitute disciplinary and other committees and 
appoint qualified staff. The rule-making powers granted to Bar 
Councils under Section 15 are regulatory powers and must be 
construed widely60 because they support the objective of regulation 
of the legal profession.
48.	 In Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of MP,61 a two-
Judge Bench of this Court observed that the power of Bar Councils 
to frame rules must
be interpreted broadly:
“51. The power to frame rules has to be given wider scope, 
rather than a restrictive approach so as to render the 
legislative object achievable. The functions to be performed 
by the Bar Councils and the manner in which these functions 
60	
Gupta Modern Breweries v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2007) 6 SCC 317 [20]
61	
[2011] 11 SCR 965 : (2011) 9 SCC 573
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1523
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
are to be performed suggest that democratic standards 
both in the election process and in performance of all its 
functions and standards of professional conduct need to 
be adhered to. In other words, the interpretation furthering 
the object and purposes of the Act has to be preferred in 
comparison to an interpretation which would frustrate the 
same and endanger the democratic principles guiding the 
governance and conduct of the State Bar Councils.”
49.	 The SBCs have broad powers under Section 15 to give effect to the 
provisions of Chapter II. Although the rule-making power under Section 
15 is broad, it is confined to the subject matters of Chapter II. In Bar 
Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh,62 the issue before a three-Judge 
Bench was whether the Bar Council of Delhi could frame election 
rules prescribing qualifications and conditions entitling an advocate 
to vote at Bar Council elections. It was held that the SBCs cannot 
use the rule-making power under Section 15 to override the specific 
provisions of the Advocates Act. This Court observed that Sections 
3(4) and 49(1)(a) empowered the BCI to prescribe qualifications or 
conditions subject to which an advocate may be entitled to vote at 
an election to the SBCs. Resultantly, it was held that Section 15(1) 
cannot be interpreted to confer rule-making powers on the SBCs 
which are expressly provided to the BCI.63
50.	 In Surjeet Singh (supra), it
was argued that the election rules of 
the Bar Council of Delhi were valid because they were approved by 
the BCI according to Section 15(3). It was further argued that the 
approval provided by the BCI had the effect of making it a rule made 
by the BCI itself. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, Justice N L 
Untwalia held that there is a difference between making a rule and 
granting approval to a rule: 
“8. […] Any rule made by the State Bar Council cannot 
have effect unless it is approved by the Bar Council of 
India. But the approval of the Bar Council of India can 
make the rule made by the State Bar Council valid and 
effective only if the rule made is within the competence 
of the State Bar Council, otherwise not. Mere approval 
62	
[1980] 3 SCR 946 : (1980) 4 SCC 211
63	
Reiterated in Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Manubhai Paragji Vashi (2012) 1 SCC 314 [16]
1524
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
by the Bar Council of India to a rule ultra vires the State 
Bar Council cannot make the rule valid. Nor has it the 
effect of a rule made by the Bar Council of India. Making 
a rule by the Bar Council of India and giving approval to 
a rule made by the State Bar Council are two distinct and 
different things. One cannot take the place of the other.”
51.	 We can derive the following principles concerning the rule-making 
power of the SBCs under Section 15: (i) the SBCs can exercise rule-
making powers only for the subject matters specified under Chapter 
II; (ii) although the SBCs have a broad rule-making power, it must 
be exercised to further the object and purpose of the Advocates Act; 
(iii) the SBCs cannot use their rule-making power under Section 15 
with respect to subject matters on which the BCI has been granted 
exclusive power to make rules under the Advocates Act; and (iv) 
approval by the BCI to an invalid rule made by the SBCs cannot be 
deemed to validate the invalid rule.
52.	 The scope of the rule-making power of Bar Councils under Section 
15 pertains to carrying “out the purposes of” Chapter II. As mentioned 
above, the purposes of Chapter II can be determined from Sections 3 
to 14. Therefore, the scope of the rule-making power of Bar Councils 
under Section 15 extends to give effect to the provisions of Chapter 
II, namely, Sections 3 to 14.
53.	 Chapter III pertains to the admission and enrolment of
advocates. 
As discussed in the earlier segment of this judgment, the Advocates 
Act is a complete code for admission of advocates on the State 
roll. Section 28 empowers the SBCs to make rules to carry out the 
purposes of Chapter III. According to Section 28(2), the SBCs can 
make rules providing for the:
(a)	 time within which and form in which an advocate shall express 
an intention for the entry of their name in the State roll under 
Section 20; 
(b)	 form in which an application shall be made to the SBCs for 
admission as an advocate and how such application shall be 
disposed of by the enrolment committee of the SBCs;
(c)	
conditions subject to which a person may be admitted as an 
advocate; and
(d)	 instalments in which the enrolment fee may be paid.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1525
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
54.	 The admission of persons as advocates on the State roll is within 
the exclusive domain of the SBCs.64 The Advocates Act vests rule-
making power under Section 28 with the SBCs, who are the chosen 
representatives of legal practitioners, to regulate and control the 
admission of people to the legal profession. In Dr. Haniraj L Chulani 
(supra), the issue before a three-Judge Bench was whether an SBC 
can refuse admission as an advocate to a medical practitioner who 
does not want to give up their medical practice. This Court held that 
the rule-making power conferred on the SBCs to lay down further 
conditions for controlling the entry to the legal profession is not 
unfettered.65 It was held that the rule-making power of the SBCs draws 
sustenance from the guidelines laid down by the Advocates Act. It 
was further observed that the “[r]ule-making power conferred on the 
SBCs is inherently hedged in with the obligation to frame only such 
rules regarding enrolment which would fructify the purpose of having 
efficient members of the Bar who can stand up to the expectation of 
the noble and learned profession to which they are to be given entry.” 
Given the above reasoning, it was held that the rule enacted by the 
SBC barring a medical practitioner from simultaneously practicing 
law was valid.
55.	 Section 24 lays down the eligibility qualifications for a person who 
seeks admission as an advocate on the
State roll. Section 24(1)(e) 
provides that such a person must also fulfil “such other conditions as 
may be specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council under 
this Chapter.” The use of the expression “other conditions” indicates 
that the SBCs can prescribe conditions and qualifications in addition 
to what has already been prescribed statutorily under Section 24(1). 
Section 24(1) lays down requirements such as citizenship, age, and 
educational efficiency that make a person eligible to be admitted on a 
State roll. These minimum qualifications enable a person to effectively 
perform their responsibilities as legal professionals. In addition, the 
BCI can also prescribe “such other conditions” in addition to the 
qualifications already prescribed under Section 24(1). Generally, a 
condition is a qualification, restriction, or limitation.66 However, the 
“conditions” to be imposed by the SBCs should be consistent with 
64	
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995) 1 SCC 732 [11]
65	
Dr. Haniraj L Chulani (supra) [18]
66	
Union of India v. Rajdhani Grains & Jaggery Exchange Ltd (1975) 1 SCC 676 [13]
1526
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the qualifications already prescribed by the statute. The BCI cannot 
prescribe any conditions or qualifications that: (i) seek to modify what 
has already been prescribed by the statute; (ii) are contrary to the 
stipulated qualifications; and (iii) are inconsistent with the object and 
purpose of the Advocates Act.
56.	 Section 24(1)(e) has to be read conjointly with Section 28(1)(d) which 
empowers the SBCs to make rules prescribing “the conditions subject 
to which a person may be admitted as an advocate on any such 
roll.” Since Section 24(1) already prescribes the basic substantive 
qualifications, the SBCs are empowered under Section 24(1)(e) read 
with Section 28(1)(d) to make rules concerning other conditions not 
already prescribed under Section 24(1).
57.	 Section 49 pertains to the general power of the BCI to make rules. 
It provides that the BCI may make rules for discharging its functions 
under the Advocates Act. The BCI may prescribe rules providing 
for the conditions subject to which an advocate may be entitled 
to vote at Bar Council elections, qualifications for membership of 
Bar Councils and disqualification for such membership, minimum 
qualifications required for admission to a course for a degree in 
law in any recognised university, etc. Importantly, Section 49(1)(h) 
empowers the BCI to make rules prescribing the fees which may be 
levied in respect of any matter under the Advocates Act. Pursuant
to 
this, the BCI has prescribed fees under Part VIII of the BCI Rules. It 
mandates the SBCs to levy fees not exceeding the limits prescribed 
under Part VIII. The BCI has prescribed fees for varied purposes 
including petitions challenging the election of one or more members 
of the SBCs, complaints of professional misconduct under Section 
35, certificates as to the date of enrolment and the continuance of 
the name of the advocate on the roll. The above legislative scheme 
suggests that the SBCs and the BCI act as the delegates of Parliament 
under the Advocates Act.
ii.	
Bar Councils cannot levy fees beyond the express 
stipulation of law
58.	 While acting as a delegate of Parliament, the SBCs and the BCI can 
frame rules under the Advocates Act. However, any rule enacted 
by the SBCs is only ancillary and cannot be so exercised to bring 
into existence substantive rights, obligations or disabilities not
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1527
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
contemplated by the provisions of the parent enactment.67 Further, 
the rules must align with the object and purpose of the Advocates 
Act, namely, the creation of a common bar and regulation of legal 
practitioners and their qualifications, enrolment, right to practice, 
and discipline.
59.	 A legislation can confer the power to make subordinate legislation 
upon a delegate. In conferring such powers, the legislation has 
to specifically law down the policy, principles, and standards that 
will guide the subordinate authority.68 The legislative policy can be 
determined from the preamble and the provisions of an enactment.69 
The delegate derives its legislative powers from the parent statute. 
Unlike the legislature, which has sovereign legislative powers derived 
from the Constitution, the delegated authority is conferred powers 
by the parent enactment. Therefore, delegated authority must strictly 
conform to the provisions of the statute under which it is framed.70 A 
delegate cannot alter or change the legislative policy.71 A delegate 
cannot override the provisions of the parent enactment either by 
exceeding the legislative policy or making provisions inconsistent 
with the enactment.72 
60.	 In Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works 
Ltd.,73 the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) 
Markets Act 1966 allowed the market committee to levy market fees 
on all transactions of
purchase and sale provided the transactions 
took place within the notified market area. Section 12 created a legal 
fiction by providing that if any notified agricultural produce, livestock, 
or products of livestock is taken out of a notified market area, it shall 
be presumed to have been purchased or sold within such area. The 
market committee framed bylaws providing that the notified agricultural 
produce, livestock or products of livestock shall be deemed to have 
been purchased or sold after the notified commodity has been 
67	
Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of H P (2000) 3 SCC 40 [14]
68	
Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. CST (1974) 4 SCC 98 [12]
69	
Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1954) 1 SCC 978 [12]
70	
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 [75]; General Officer 
Commanding-in-Chief v. Subhash Chandra Yadav (1988) 2 SCC 352 [14]. 
71	
Rajnarain Singh v. Patna Administration Committee (1954) 2 SCC 82 [32]
72	
Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 1 SCC 137 [18]; J K Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2007) 13 
SCC 673 [133]
73	
[1997] Supp. 1 SCR 164 : (1997) 5 SCC 516
1528
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
weighed, measured, counted or when it is taken out of the notified 
market area. Thus, the bylaws introduced additional circumstances 
to the legal fiction contemplated under Section 12. 
61.	 A two-Judge Bench of this Court identified the following relevant 
principles in matters of delegated legislation:
“26. […] the delegate which has been authorized to make 
subsidiary rules and regulations has to work within the 
scope of its authority and cannot widen or constrict the 
scope of the Act or the policy laid down thereunder. It 
cannot, in the garb of making rules, legislate on the field 
covered by the Act and has to restrict itself to the mode 
of implementation of the policy and purpose of the Act.”
Given the above principle, it was observed that Section 12 is a fiscal 
provision and had to be construed strictly. It was further observed 
that any circumstance, situation, factor, or condition which was not 
contemplated by the Act could not be taken into consideration to 
raise the presumption regarding sale or purchase of the notified 
agricultural produce. It was held that the bylaw introduced additional 
factors such as ‘weighed’, ‘measured’, and ‘counted’ which were not 
contemplated under Section 12. Therefore, the bylaws were held 
to be ultra vires for widening the scope of the presumption under 
Section 12.
62.	 In Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam,74 the State Government 
framed a rule empowering the State
authorities to reexamine the 
computation of agricultural income made by the Central officers. It 
was contended that this rule was beyond the power delegated under 
the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act. A three-Judge Bench of this 
Court observed:
“10. […] It is an established principle that the power to 
make rules under an Act is derived from the enabling 
provision found in such Act. Therefore, it is fundamental 
that a delegate on whom such power is conferred has to 
act within the limits of the authority conferred by the Act 
and it cannot enlarge the scope of the Act. A delegate 
cannot override the Act either by exceeding the authority 
74	
[2001] 2 SCR 515 : (2001) 4 SCC 202
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1529
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
or by making a provision that is inconsistent with the Act. 
Any rule made in exercise of such delegated power has 
to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act, and if 
the rule goes beyond what the Act contemplates, the rule 
becomes in excess of the power delegated under the Act, 
and if it does any of the above, the rule becomes ultra 
vires the Act.”
63.	 In Assam Co. Ltd. (supra), it was observed that enactment 
empowered the State Government to make such rules as were 
necessary for carrying out the purposes of the enactment. It was 
further observed that the object and the scheme of the enactment 
did not empower the State authorities to recompute agricultural 
income contrary to the computation made by the Central officers. 
It was held that the rule framed by the State government was ultra 
vires because it enlarged the scope of the enactment.
64.	 In Consumer Online Foundation and Others v. Union of India,75 
this Court was dealing with the validity of the levy of development 
fees on embarking passengers by the lessees of the Airports Authority 
of India76 at the international airports in New Delhi and Mumbai. 
The unamended Section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act 
199477 empowered the AAI, after the previous approval of the Central 
Government, to levy development fees on embarking passengers 
“at the rate as may be prescribed.” A two-Judge Bench of this Court 
held that the
development fee was in the nature of a cess or tax for 
generating revenue for the specified purposes mentioned in Section 
22A.78 Further, it was held that the power to levy a development fee 
under Section 22 could not be exercised without the rules prescribing 
the rate at which the development fee was to be levied. Since no 
rules were framed prescribing the rate of development fee, it was 
held that the levy was without authority of law.
65.	 In Consumer Online Foundation (supra), the Central Government 
determined the rate of development fee in two letters communicated 
to the lessees. This Court held that under Section 22A the Central 
75	
[2011] 5 SCR 911 : (2011) 5 SCC 360 
76	
“AAI”
77	
“AAI Act”
78	
Section 22A, AAI Act.
1530
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Government only had the power to grant its approval to the levy 
and collection of development fees but had no power to fix the 
rate at which the development fee would be levied and collected 
from embarking passengers. The rates determined by the Central 
Government were held to be ultra vires the AAI Act. 
66.	 From the above discussion, we can cull out the following principles: 
(i) a delegate cannot act contrary to the express provisions and object 
of the parent legislation; (ii) a delegate cannot widen or constrict the 
scope of the parent legislation or the legislative policy prescribed 
under it; and (iii) a fiscal provision has to be construed strictly and 
a delegate cannot consider any circumstance, factors or condition 
not contemplated by the parent legislation.
67.	 The legislative policy of enrolment and admission of advocates is 
contained in Chapter III of the Advocates Act. Section 24(1) lays down 
the qualifications subject to which an advocate may be admitted on 
a State roll. Section 24(1)(f) provides that the enrolment fee payable 
by general candidates is Rupees seven hundred fifty and by SC and 
ST candidates, Rupees one hundred and twenty-five. Section 24(1)
(f) reflects the legislative policy of the Advocates Act that subject to 
the fulfilment of other conditions of Section 24(1), the payment of 
the stipulated monetary amount will make a person eligible to be 
admitted as an advocate.
68.
Presently, the SBCs charge enrolment fees in the following manner: (i) 
they charge an enrolment fee according to the legal stipulation under 
Section 24(1)(f), but charge miscellaneous fees, and (ii) they charge 
an enrolment fee beyond the legal stipulation in addition to charging 
miscellaneous fees. Section 24(1)(f) expressly stipulates that the total 
enrolment fees shall be Rupees seven hundred fifty for advocates 
belonging to the general category and Rupees one hundred twenty-
five for advocates belonging to the SC and ST category. The SBCs 
cannot charge “enrolment fees” beyond the express legal stipulation 
under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands. Therefore, prescribing 
enrolment fees beyond Rupees seven hundred for general candidates 
and Rupees one hundred twenty-five for SC and ST candidates is 
contrary to Section 24(1)(f). The subject matter of enrolment fee is 
covered by the Advocates Act. Therefore, the SBCs, being delegated 
authorities, do not have any legislative powers to prescribe enrolment 
fees contrary to the statutory stipulation.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1531
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
69.	 As discussed in the above segments of this judgment, the legislature 
prescribed the enrolment fee under Section 24(1)(f) to cover “all 
functions” carried out by the SBCs and the BCI under the Advocates 
Act. The legislative history suggests that the legislature was averse 
to imposing any charges other than enrolment fees at the time of 
enrolment. This was in furtherance of the legislative object to foster 
an inclusive Bar. However, the SBCs are imposing miscellaneous 
fees and charges in the guise of an enrolment fee, which cumulatively 
exceed the statutory stipulation under Section 24(1)(f). The decision 
of the SBCs to charge an enrolment fee beyond the stipulated amount 
is contrary to the legislative object of the Advocates Act.
70.	 Section 24(1)(f) is a fiscal regulatory provision and has to be construed 
strictly. Parliament has prescribed the enrolment fees in the exercise 
of its sovereign legislative powers. The SBCs and the BCI, being 
delegates of Parliament, cannot alter or modify the fiscal policy laid 
down by Parliament. The delegate can create substantive rights 
and obligations only to the extent to which the parent enactment 
empowers the delegate.79 By prescribing additional fees at the time 
of enrolment, the SBCs have created new substantive obligations not 
contemplated by the provisions of the Advocates Act. The basis for 
the fees imposed by the SBCs has to be traceable to the
provisions 
of the statute. There is no express provision in the Advocates Act 
empowering the SBCs to levy fees, except for the enrolment fee and 
stamp duty, if any, under Section 24(1)(f), at the time of admission 
of advocates on the State roll. The decision of the SBCs to charge 
miscellaneous fees is contrary to the legislative prescription of the 
Advocates Act.
71.	 On 26 June 2013, the BCI passed a resolution directing the SBCs 
to charge Rupees six thousand as enrolment fees for general 
candidates and Rupees three thousand for SC and ST candidates. 
Importantly, the resolution stated that the SBCs could charge other 
fees according to “their own suitability.” On 22 December 2016, the 
BCI addressd a letter to all the SBCs directing them to charge the 
revised enrolment fees. The BCI resolution dated 26 June 2013 
prompted many SBCs such as the Odisha Bar Council to enhance 
their enrolment fees. Section 24(1)(f) stipulates the enrolment fee 
79	
See Global Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2009) 15 SCC 570 [25]
1532
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to be charged by the SBCs. In the face of the express stipulation 
of law, the BCI had no authority to pass a resolution revising the 
enrolment fees charged by the SBCs. The fact that the enrolment 
fee stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) has not been revised by the 
legislature does not clothe the BCI with any authority to direct the 
SBCs to charge revised enrolment fees. Since the BCI exercises 
general supervision and control over all the SBCs, it is incumbent 
upon it to ensure that the SBCs strictly follow the mandate of the 
Advocates Act. The resolution dated 26 June 2013 is devoid of legal 
authority and contrary to Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act.
G.	
All fees charged at the time of enrolment are ‘enrolment fees’
72.	 In this batch of matters, we have transferred to this Court similar 
petitions pending before the Kerala High Court. In T Koshy v. Bar 
Council of Kerala,80 the SBC was charging special fees for enrolment 
from candidates who had retired from government service. A Single 
Judge of the Kerala High Court observed that the special fees were 
charged in addition to the enrolment fees and other miscellaneous 
charges such as application form fee, registration fee, enrolment 
certificate fee, and verification fee. The vires of the miscellaneous 
fees was not challenged before the High Court. The High Court 
construed the special fee charged by the SBC as an enrolment fee 
and held that the amount
charged by the SBC was over and above 
the enrolment fee stipulated by Section 24(1)(f). In appeal, the 
Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of the Single 
Judge by holding that Section 28(2)(d) did not empower the SBC 
“to prescribe any fee for enrolment, either in the form of enrolment 
fee or special fee.”81 The Special Leave Petition filed by the SBC 
was dismissed by this Court on 4 June 2019.82
73.	 In adjudicating upon WP (C) No. 3068 of 2023,83 another Single Judge 
of the Kerala High Court relied on T Koshy (supra) to observe that 
the SBC is only entitled to collect the enrolment fee stipulated under 
Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. Subsequently, the writ petition 
was heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which passed 
80	
2016 SCC OnLine Ker 41055
81	
Bar Council of Kerala v. T Koshy, W A No. 2170 of 2017. 
82	
Bar Council of Kerala v. N S Gopakumar, SLP(C) No. 44268 of 2018.
83	
Akshai M Sivan v. Bar Council of Kerala, WP(C) No. 3068 of 2023 (order dt. 12 June 2023)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1533
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
an interim order directing the SBC to admit the petitioners on the 
State roll by accepting Rupees seven hundred fifty as enrolment fees. 
74.	 Given the above background, two issues arise for consideration: 
(i) whether the miscellaneous fees which are charged in addition 
to the enrolment fee at the time of enrolment can be considered 
as enrolment fee; and (ii) whether the SBCs or the BCI can charge 
miscellaneous fees as a pre-condition for enrolment.
i.	
Charges other than the enrolment fee cannot be a valid 
pre-condition
75.	 Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act lays down the conditions subject 
to which an advocate may be admitted on a State roll. Section 24(1)
(f) provides that the enrolment fee is paid by the advocate “in respect 
of the enrolment.” The use of the phrase “in respect of the enrolment” 
conveys that the fee is paid for the entire enrolment process. Under 
the Advocates Act, the process of enrolment commences when an 
applicant makes an application to the SBC within whose jurisdiction 
the applicant proposes to practice. Thereafter, the enrolment 
committee of the SBC scrutinizes the application on the basis of the 
eligibility qualifications laid down under Section 24(1). The name of 
an applicant who is found eligible is entered on the roll of advocates 
and a certificate of enrolment is issued to the applicant by the SBC. 
The enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) comprehends
the whole enrolment process. 
76.	 On 27 December 2016,84 the BCI passed a resolution fixing the 
verification fees charged by the SBCs at the time of submission of 
enrolment forms. The resolution was in the following terms
“The State Bar Councils/ Enrolment Committees of the 
State Bar Councils shall require the Xerox as well as 
the original certificates of the candidates applying for 
enrolment. Following certificates shall be required to be 
submitted alongwith the enrolment forms:-
(a)	 Certificate of concerned Board for Secondary/10th 
examination.
84	
Communication dated 28 January 2017 by the BCI to the secretaries of the SBCs, BCI:D 529/2017(Council) 
dated 28 January 2017.
1534
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(b)	 Certificate of concerned Board for Senior Secondary 
or intermediate examination.
(c)	
Certificate of graduation, if any or/and the LLB degree 
or the provisional certificates of these Degrees 
granted by the University as well as the mark-sheets 
of all the three or five year of LL.B. examinations.
The office of State Bar Councils shall charge a sum of 
Rs. 2500/- for verification of the said certificates from the 
candidates at the time of submission of the enrolment 
forms only.”
77.	 In view of the BCI resolution, many SBCs increased the verification 
fees charged by them. Currently, the SBCs charge various fees such 
as verification fees, application fees, registration fees, and identity 
card fees at the time of enrolment. The SBCs charge these fees as 
concomitant to the process of enrolment. For instance, a verification 
fee is charged for the verification of academic qualification certificates 
of the candidates. The verification fee is collected from the candidates 
“at the time of submission of enrolment forms.” These additional fees 
are in furtherance of the process of enrolment of advocates and are 
encompassed within the meaning of the phrase “in respect of the 
enrolment” appearing in Section 24(1)(f).  
78.	 Additionally, the SBCs also collect charges such as building fund 
and benevolent fund from advocates at the time of enrolment. These 
charges are per se not related to the process of enrolment,
but in 
most cases the candidates have no choice but to pay the levies. 
The SBCs admit that they charge the fees at the time of enrolment 
as a one-time payment for all the services offered by them. The 
SBCs contend that they charge these fees at the time of enrolment 
because the advocates do not pay periodic fees after enrolment. 
79.	 Admission on the roll of advocates is a pre-requisite for any person 
intending to practice law in India. At the time of enrolment, candidates 
have little agency but to pay the miscellaneous fees imposed by the 
SBCs to get enrolled. Non-payment of the fees means that a candidate 
cannot get enrolled on the State roll. Thus, all the miscellaneous 
fees collected from a candidate at the time of enrolment essentially 
serve as a pre-condition to the process of enrolment. Section 24(1) 
specifically lays down the pre-conditions subject to which an advocate
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1535
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
can be enrolled on State rolls. Since Section 24(1)(f) specifies the 
amount that can be charged by the SBCs as an enrolment fee, the 
SBCs and the BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the 
stipulated enrolment fee as a pre-condition to enrolment.
80.	 Rule 40 under Section IVA of Chapter II of Part VI under the BCI 
Rules mandates every advocate borne on the rolls to pay the SBC 
a sum of Rupees three hundred every third year.85 The sum under 
Rule 40 can only be collected from advocates already admitted on 
the State rolls. Therefore, this sum cannot be collected from persons 
at the time of enrolment. It must be collected from advocates after 
they are admitted on the State roll.  
ii.	
Article 14: substantive equality and manifest arbitrariness
81.	 Article 14 has a substantive content that mirrors the quest for ensuring 
fair treatment of an individual in every aspect of human endeavour 
and  existence.86 In Joseph Shine v. Union of India,87 one of us 
(D Y Chandrachud, J) observed that substantive equality is directed 
at eliminating individual, institutional, and systemic discrimination 
against disadvantaged groups which effectively undermines their full 
and equal participation in society at the social, economic, political, 
and cultural levels. It was further observed:
“172. The primary enquiry to be undertaken by the 
Court towards the realisation of substantive equality is 
85	
Rule 40,
Section IVA, Chapter II, Part VI, BCI Rules. [It reads:
“40. Every Advocate borne on the rolls of the State Bar Council shall pay to the State Bar Council a sum 
of Rs. 300 every third year commencing from 1st August, 2001 along with a statement of particulars as 
given in the form set out at the end of these Rules, the first payment to be made on or before 1st August, 
2001 or such extended time as notified by the Bar Council of India or the concerned State Bar Council.
Provided further however that an advocate shall be at liberty to pay in lieu of the payment of Rs. 60043 
every three years a consolidated amount of Rs. 1000. This will be a life time payment to be kept in the 
fixed deposit by the concerned State Bar Council. Out of life time payment, 80% of the amount will be 
retained by the State Bar Council in a fixed deposit and remaining 20% has to be transferred to the Bar 
Council of India. The Bar Council of India and State Bar Council have to keep the same in a fixed deposit 
and the interest on the said deposits shall alone be utilized for the Welfare of the Advocates”44.
Explanation 1.—Statement of particulars as required by Rule 40 in the form set out shall require to be 
submitted only once in three years.
Explanation 2.—The Advocates who are in actual practise and are not drawing salary or not in full time 
service and not drawing salary from their respective employers are only required to pay the amount 
referred to in this rule.
Explanation 3.—This rule
will be effective from 1-10-2006 and for period prior to this, advocates will 
continue to be covered by old rule.”]
86	
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 [409]
87	
[2018] 11 SCR 765 : (2019) 3 SCC 39 [171]
1536
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to determine whether the provision contributes to the 
subordination of a disadvantaged group of individuals. 
The disadvantage must be addressed not by treating a 
woman as “weak” but by construing her entitlement to 
an equal citizenship. The former legitimises patronising 
attitudes towards women. The latter links true equality to 
the realisation of dignity. The focus of such an approach 
is not simply on equal treatment under the law, but rather 
on the real impact of the legislation. Thus, Section 497 
has to be examined in the light of existing social structures 
which enforce the position of a woman as an unequal 
participant in a marriage.”
82.	 In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India,88 a Constitution Bench held 
that Section 377 undermined substantive equality because it created 
barriers, systemic and deliberate, for the effective participation of the 
members of the LGBTIQ+ community in the workforce.
83.	 In Bonnie Foi Law College (supra), a Constitution Bench of this 
Court recognized the effect of the exorbitant enrolment fees charged 
by the SBCs:
“54. We also have one caveat arising from the plea that 
different State Bar Councils are charging different fees for 
enrolment. This is something which needs the attention 
of the Bar Council of India, which is not devoid of the 
powers to see that a uniform pattern is observed and the 
fee does not become oppressive at the threshold of young 
students joining
the Bar.”
84.	 The burden of payment of enrolment fees and other miscellaneous 
fees imposed by the SBCs falls equally on all persons seeking 
enrolment. While the burden is facially neutral, it perpetuates structural 
discrimination against persons from marginalized and economically 
weaker sections of the society. In more than one way, the process 
of enrolment perpetuates a culture89 of systemic exclusion and 
discrimination that impacts the entry of law graduates into the legal 
profession and even beyond. A law graduate in India undergoes legal 
88	
[2018] 7 SCR 379 : (2018) 10 SCC 1 [453]
89	
See Nitisha v. Union of India (2021) 15 SCC 125 [77]
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1537
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
education which typically entails a study of a three-year LLB course 
or an integrated five-year course. The model of legal education in 
India is largely centred around a standardized admissions test. 
Candidates desirous of taking the admission test have to pay a 
hefty fee for taking the examination and in many cases engage 
tutors or coaching classes to prepare for these tests. Although the 
engagement of tutors or purchase of preparation material is a choice 
a candidate can choose not to make, it puts them against a cohort 
of competitors who have engaged such help. Once admitted to a 
recognized institute for legal education, a student has to afford the 
fees of the college either by paying on their own or by availing of a 
student loan. Students are also expected and sometimes mandated 
to partake in internships, research work, and co-curricular and extra-
curricular activities among others.90 Partaking in these activities 
entails additional expenses. 
85.	 Young law graduates seeking to enter litigation start from a position 
of disadvantage. In S Seshachalam v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu,91 
Justice R Banumathi summed up the struggle of young advocates 
in apt words: 
“26. The profession of Law is a noble calling. The legal 
fraternity toils day and night to be successful in the 
profession. Although it is true that slowly working 
one’s way up is the norm in any profession, including 
Law, but
initially young advocates have to remain in 
the queue for a prolonged period of time and struggle 
through greater hardships. Despite being extremely 
talented, a number of young lawyers hardly get proper 
opportunity or exposure in their profession. New 
entrants to the profession in the initial stages of the 
profession suffer with the meagre stipend which young 
lawyers may receive during their initial years, coupled 
with the absence of a legislation concerning this, they 
struggle to manage their food, lodging, transportation 
and other needs. Despite their valiant efforts, they 
90	
Rule 25, Part IV of the Rules of Legal Education 2008, BCI mandates law students to complete an 
internship under an advocate for a minimum of 12 weeks for the three year law course and twenty weeks 
for the five year law course.
91	
[2014] 12 SCR 465 : (2014) 16 SCC 72
1538
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
are unable to march ahead in their profession. It is 
only after years of hardwork and slogging that some 
of the fortunate lawyers are able to make a name for 
themselves and achieve success in the profession. 
For the majority of the legal fraternity, everyday is a 
challenge. Despite the difficult times, the lawyer who sets 
up practice straight after enrolment, struggles to settle 
down … in the profession. Some of the lawyers remain 
struggling throughout their lives yet choose to remain in 
the profession. It is something like “riding a bicycle uphill 
with the wind against one”.
(emphasis added)
86.	 Young law graduates who start litigating right after graduation earn 
anywhere between Rupees ten thousand to Rupees fifty thousand 
per month, depending upon the location of their practice and the 
chambers they join. The structure of the Indian legal setup is such 
that the struggle for getting acceptance in chambers and law firms 
is greater for those who belong to the marginalized sections, first-
generation advocates, or law graduates without a degree from a 
National Law University. A recent report suggests that many law 
students from the Dalit community face English language barriers, 
reducing their opportunities of practicing before the High Courts and 
the Supreme Court where the court proceedings are in English.92 
In a legal system that is predisposed against the marginalized, the 
pre-condition of paying
exorbitant fees in the name of enrolment fee 
creates a further barrier for many. 
87.	 In Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India,93 a two-Judge Bench of 
this Court, explained the redundancy of the concept of merit and 
the struggles of a first-generation learner:
“33. The crux of the above discussion is that the binary of 
merit and reservation has now become superfluous once 
this Court has recognised the principle of substantive 
equality as the mandate of Article 14 and as a facet of 
Articles 15(1) and 16(1). An open competitive exam may 
92	
Challenges for Dalits in South Asia’s Legal Community, Chapter III – Dalit Justice Defenders in India, 
American Bar Association (2021) 16
93	
[2022] 11 SCR 585 : (2022) 4 SCC 1
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1539
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
ensure formal equality where everyone has an equal 
opportunity to participate. However, widespread inequalities 
in the availability of and access to educational facilities 
will result in the deprivation of certain classes of people 
who would be unable to effectively compete in such a 
system. Special provisions (like reservation) enable such 
disadvantaged classes to overcome the barriers they face 
in effectively competing with forward classes and thus 
ensuring substantive equality. The privileges that accrue 
to forward classes are not limited to having access to 
quality schooling and access to tutorials and coaching 
centres to prepare for a competitive examination but 
also include their social networks and cultural capital 
(communication skills, accent, books or academic 
accomplishments) that they inherit from their family. 
The cultural capital ensures that a child is trained 
unconsciously by the familial environment to take up 
higher education or high posts commensurate with 
their family’s standing. This works to the disadvantage 
of individuals who are first-generation learners and 
come from communities whose traditional occupations 
do not result in the transmission of necessary skills 
required to perform well in open examination. They 
have to put in surplus effort to compete with their 
peers from the forward communities. On the other 
hand, social networks (based on community linkages)
become useful when individuals seek guidance and 
advice on how to prepare for examination and advance 
in their career even if their immediate family does not 
have the necessary exposure. Thus, a combination 
of family habitus, community linkages and inherited 
skills work to the advantage of individuals belonging 
to certain classes, which is then classified as “merit” 
reproducing and reaffirming social hierarchies.”
(emphasis added)
88.	 Social capital and networks play an important role in the Indian 
legal setup in advancing legal careers. Most litigation chambers hire 
advocates through networks and community linkages. The structure of 
the Indian legal system is such that social capital and networks also
1540
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
play an important role in getting clients. The lack of social capital and 
network is acutely felt by advocates from marginalized communities.94 
The marginalized sections of our society face insurmountable 
obstacles in navigating the Indian legal system.95 This is further 
compounded by their lack of representation in the legal profession. 
Greater representation of the marginalized communities in the legal 
profession will increase the diversity within the profession, enable 
the marginalized sections to trust the legal system and facilitate the 
delivery of legal aid and services to unrepresented communities. 
89.	 Section 24(1)(f) prescribes an enrolment fee of Rupees seven 
hundred fifty from general candidates and Rupees one hundred 
twenty-five from SC and ST candidates. Therefore, the enrolment 
fee prescribed for candidates from the SC and ST communities is far 
less than the fees paid by a candidate from the general category. In 
1993, Parliament increased the enrolment fee for general candidates 
from Rupees two-hundred fifty to Rupees seven-hundred fifty, 
without disturbing the fees paid by candidates from the SC and ST 
community. This shows that Parliament is conscious of the socio-
economic marginalization of the SC and ST community. However, 
the present enrolment fee structure reinforces the socio-economic 
marginalization of the SCs and STs. For instance, the Bar Council 
of Maharashtra and Goa charges a
cumulative fee of Rupees fifteen 
thousand from the general candidates and Rupees fourteen thousand 
five hundred from SC and ST candidates. Similarly, in Manipur, 
the general category candidates pay Rupees sixteen thousand six 
hundred fifty as an enrolment fee while a candidate from the SC 
and ST category pays Rupees sixteen thousand fifty. Thus, the 
candidates from the SC and ST category practically pay as much as 
the candidates from the general category. This is evidently against 
the legislative policy of the Advocates Act.
90.	 Dignity is crucial to substantive equality. The dignity of an individual 
encompasses the right of the individual to develop their potential to 
the fullest.96 The right to pursue a profession of one’s choice and 
94	
Challenges for Dalits in South Asia’s Legal Community, Chapter III – Dalit Justice Defenders in India, 
American Bar Association (2021) 17
95	
Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1010 [12] 
96	
K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 [525]
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1541
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
earn livelihood is integral to the dignity of an individual. Charging 
exorbitant enrolment fees and miscellaneous fees as a pre-condition 
for enrolment creates a barrier to entry into the legal profession. The 
levy of exorbitant fees as a pre-condition to enrolment serves to 
denigrate the dignity of those who face social and economic barriers in 
the advancement of their legal careers.97 This effectively perpetuates 
systemic discrimination against persons from marginalized and 
economically weaker sections by undermining their equal participation 
in the legal profession. Therefore, the current enrolment fee structure 
charged by the SBCs is contrary to the principle of substantive equality. 
91.	 In Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India,98 a three-Judge 
Bench of this Court held that substantive equality is aimed at producing 
equality of outcomes through different modes of affirmative action. 
The purpose of the Advocates Act of creating an inclusive Bar cannot 
be defeated by having exclusionary conditions which seek to create 
social and economic barriers. The Bar Councils have a responsibility 
in the public interest to ensure greater representation of persons 
from marginalized communities in the legal profession. 
92.	 The decision of the SBCs to charge exorbitant fees also suffers 
from the vice of manifest arbitrariness. In Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. 
State of Karnataka,99 this Court laid down
the following principles for 
challenging delegated legislation: (i) the test of arbitrary action which 
applies to executive actions does not necessarily apply to delegated 
legislation; (ii) a delegated legislation can be struck down only if it 
is manifestly arbitrary; and (iii) a delegated legislation is manifestly 
arbitrary if it is not in conformity with the statute or offends Article 
14. In Clariant International Ltd. v. SEBI,100 a three-Judge Bench 
of this Court held that when any criterion is fixed by a statute or by 
a policy, the subordinate authority must follow the policy formulation 
broadly and substantially. Non-conformity with the legislative policy 
will render delegated legislation arbitrary.101
97	
See Neil Aurelio Nunes (supra) [35]
98	
(2023) 2 SCC 209 [37]
99	
[1995] Supp. 6 SCR 759 : (1996) 10 SCC 304 [13]
100	 [2004] Supp. 3 SCR 843 : (2004) 8 SCC 524 [63]
101	 Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India v. Cipla Ltd (2003) 7 SCC 1 [9]
1542
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
93.	 In Shayara Bano v. Union of India,102 a Constitution Bench held 
that manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the legislature 
capriciously, irrationally, and/or without adequate determining 
principles. It was further held that legislation which is excessive and 
disproportionate would also be manifestly arbitrary. In Joseph Shine 
(supra), one of us (D Y Chandrachud, J) held that an “adequate 
determining principle” is a principle that aligns with constitutional 
values. With respect to a piece of delegated legislation, an adequate 
determining principle is a principle that aligns with the legislative policy 
of the parent enactment as well as constitutional values. Delegated 
legislation that is forbiddingly excessive or disproportionate will also 
be manifestly arbitrary.103
94.	 As held in the preceding segments of this judgment, the SBCs at the 
time of enrolment charge fees in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) 
and the legislative policy of the Advocates Act. Therefore, the excess 
enrolment fees charged by the SBCs are manifestly arbitrary. Further, 
the effect of charging exorbitant enrolment fees as a pre-condition 
for enrolment has created entry barriers, especially for people from 
marginalized and economically weaker sections, to enter into the legal 
profession. Thus, the current enrolment fee structure is manifestly 
arbitrary because it denies substantive equality.  
iii.	
Article 19(1)(g):
unreasonableness 
95.	 Section 30 of the Advocates Act inheres in every advocate whose 
name is entered in the State roll the right to practice in all courts 
throughout the territory of India. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution 
provides that all citizens of India shall have the right to practice 
any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. 
Article 19(6) subjects the right under Article 19(1)(g) to reasonable 
restrictions. Further, the provision allows the State to make any law 
relating to the professional or technical qualifications necessary 
for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade 
or business. Thus, the right to practice law is not only a statutory 
right but also a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(g).104 
However, the right of citizens to practice law can be regulated and 
102	 [2017] 9 SCR 797 : (2017) 9 SCC 1 [101]
103	 Franklin Templeton Trustee Services (P) Ltd. v. Amruta Garg (2021) 9 SCC 606 [79]
104	 N K Bajpai v. Union of India (2012) 4 SCC 653 [25]
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1543
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
is not absolute.105 Under the Advocates Act, only those advocates 
who are admitted on the State roll have a right to practice throughout 
the territory of India.106
96.	 In Chintamanrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh,107 a Constitution 
Bench explained the purpose of the expression “reasonable 
restrictions” thus:
“8. The phrase “reasonable restriction” connotes that the 
limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right 
should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond 
what is required in the interests of the public. The word 
“reasonable” implies intelligent care and deliberation, that 
is, the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation 
which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be 
said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it 
strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed 
in Article 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by 
clause (6) of Article 19, it must be held to be wanting in 
that quality.”
97.	 In Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana,108 a Constitution 
Bench of was called upon to decide the validity of bye-laws framed 
by the Municipal Board. Bye-law 2 provided that no person could 
establish any new market or place for wholesale transactions without 
the previous permission of the Municipal Board. Justice S R Das (as 
the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for the Constitution 
Bench, held:
“11. The Constitution by
Article 19(1) guarantees to the 
Indian citizen the right to carry on trade or business subject 
to such reasonable restrictions as are mentioned in clause 
(6) of that article. The position, however, under Bye-law 
2 is that while it provided that no person shall establish a 
market for wholesale transactions in vegetables except with 
the permission of the Board, there is no bye-law authorising 
the respondent Board to issue the licence. The net result 
105	 Jamshed Ansari v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2016) 10 SCC 554 [17]
106	 N K Bajpai (supra) [25]
107	 [1950] 1 SCR 759 : 1950 SCC 695
108	 [1950] 1 SCR 566 : 1950 SCC 221
1544
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
is that the prohibition of this bye-law, in the absence of 
any provision for issuing licence, becomes absolute.”
98.	 In Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, Jalalabad,109 a 
Constitution Bench of this Court was called upon to determine the 
validity of the bye-laws framed by the Town Area Committee imposing 
licence fees on any person intending to sell in wholesale at any 
place in the town area. The issue before this Court was whether the 
Committee had legal authority to impose the fees. Justice S R Das 
(as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that a “licence fee 
on a business not only takes away the property of the licensee but 
also operates as a restriction on his right to carry on his business, 
for without the payment of such fee the business cannot be carried 
on at all.” It was held that the restriction on the fundament right 
under Article 19(1)(g) can be imposed by the State according to 
Article 19(6). It was held that an illegal impost is an unreasonable 
restriction on the right to carry on occupation, trade or business 
under Article 19(1)(g):
“12. […] If, therefore, the licence fee cannot be justified on 
the basis of any valid law no question of its reasonableness 
can arise, for an illegal impost must at all times be an 
unreasonable restriction and will necessarily infringe the 
right of the citizen to carry on his occupation, trade or 
business under Article 19(1)(g) and such infringement
can 
properly be made the subject-matter of a challenge under 
Article 32 of the Constitution.”
99.	 In Mohammad Yasin (supra), the United Provinces Town Areas Act 
1914 empowered the Town Area Committee to charge fees for the 
use or occupation of any immoveable property vested in or entrusted 
to the management of the Town Area Committee, including any public 
street or place. It was held that this power did not include the power 
to levy licence fees on a person intending to sell in wholesale at any 
place in the town area. Therefore, it was held that the licence fee 
imposed by the Town Area Committee was ultra vires the 1914 Act:
“20. In our opinion, the bye-laws which impose a charge 
on the wholesale dealer in the shape of the prescribed fee, 
109	 [1952] 1 SCR 572 : (1952) 1 SCC 205
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1545
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
irrespective of any use or occupation by him of immovable 
property vested in or entrusted to the management of 
the Town Area Committee including any public street, 
are obviously ultra vires the powers of the respondent 
Committee and, therefore, the bye-laws cannot be said 
to constitute a valid law which alone may, under Article 
19(6) of the Constitution, impose a restriction on the right 
conferred by Article 19(1)(g). In the absence of any valid 
law authorising it, such illegal imposition must undoubtedly 
operate as an illegal restraint and must infringe the 
unfettered right of the wholesale dealer to carry on his 
occupation, trade or business which is guaranteed to him 
by Article 19(1)(g) of our Constitution.”
100.	In Cooverjee B Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner,110 another 
Constitution Bench held that a licence fee levied without the authority 
of law was not protected under Article 19(6). In R M Seshadri v. 
District Magistrate,111 the District Collector imposed a condition 
compelling the licencee to exhibit at each performance one or more 
approved films of such length and for such length of time as directed 
by the Government. The condition was challenged for violation of 
Article 19(1)(g). A Constitution Bench of this Court observed that 
the condition was couched in wide language and did not lay down 
any guideline to the licencing authority. It was held that a “condition 
couched in such wide
language is bound to operate harshly upon the 
cinema business and cannot be regarded as a reasonable restriction.”
101.	We can cull out the following principles from the above discussion: 
(i) the power of the authority to impose restrictions on the right 
under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and must be exercised in a 
reasonable manner; (ii) any fees or licences levied by the authorities 
must be valid and levied on the basis of the authority of law; and 
(iii) delegated legislation which is contrary to or beyond the scope 
of the legislative policy laid down by the parent legislation places an 
unreasonable restriction in violation of Article 19(1)(g).112 
110	 [1954] 1 SCR 873 : (1954) 1 SCC 18 [9]
111	 (1954) 2 SCC 320
112	 Minerva Talkies v. State of Karnataka, 1988 Supp SCC 176 [15]
1546
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
102.	According to the current enrolment fee structure of the SBCs, an 
advocate has to pay anywhere between Rupees fifteen thousand to 
Rupees forty-two thousand as a pre-condition to enrolment. As held 
in the above segments of this judgment, the SBCs charge enrolment 
fees in excess of the stipulated fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f). 
The excess enrolment fee imposed by the SBCs is without authority 
of law. Compounded with this there are no reasonable criteria behind 
the decision of the SBCs to charge such exorbitant amounts as 
enrolment fees. The SBCs cannot have unbridled powers to charge 
any fees given the express legislative policy under Section 24(1)(f). 
Imposing excessive financial burdens on young law graduates at the 
time of enrolment causes economic hardships, especially for those 
belonging to the marginalized and economically weaker sections of 
the society. Therefore, the current enrolment fee structure charged 
by the SBCs is unreasonable and infringes Article 19(1)(g). 
H.	
Financial implications for the SBCs and the BCI
103.	As discussed in the above segments of this judgment, we are 
cognizant of the fact that the SBCs and the BCI depend entirely 
on the amount collected from candidates at the time of enrolment 
for performing their functions under the Advocates Act, including 
payment of salaries to their staff. According to the legislative scheme 
of the Advocates Act, the Bar Councils must
only charge the amount 
stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) as an enrolment fee. Instead of 
devising ways and means to charge fees from enrolled advocates 
for rendering services, the SBCs and the BCI have been forcing 
young law graduates to cough up exorbitant amounts of money as 
a pre-condition for enrolment.
104.	Once the advocates are enrolled on the State rolls, the Bar Councils 
can charge fees for the services provided to the advocates in 
accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act. It is for the 
SBCs and the BCI to devise an appropriate method of charging fees 
that is fair and just not only for the law graduates intending to enroll, 
but also for the advocates already enrolled on the State rolls. There 
are several reasonable ways by which the SBCs and BCI can and 
already do collect funds at later stages of an advocate’s career. For 
instance, under the Advocates Welfare Fund Act 2001, advocates 
must affix mandatory welfare stamps on vakalatnamas which are 
used to collect funds for advocate welfare. Unlike an enrollment fee
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1547
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
charged before a graduate is given a fair chance to earn a living, such 
sources of income are directly correlated to the advocates’ practice.
105.	It is clarified that the only charges permissible at the stage of enrolment 
are those stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. All 
other miscellaneous fees, including but not limited to, application form 
fees, processing fees, postal charges, police verification charges, ID 
card charges, administrative fees, photograph fees etc. charged from 
the candidates at the time of admission are to be construed as part 
of the enrollment fee. The fees charged under these or any similar 
heads cannot cumulatively exceed the enrolment fee prescribed in 
Section 24(1)(f).
106.	The Advocates Welfare Fund Act 2001113 is enacted to provide 
for the constitution of a welfare fund for the benefit of advocates. 
Section 3 provides that the appropriate government shall constitute 
an Advocates Welfare Fund. Section 15 mandates the SBCs to pay 
annually to the welfare fund an amount equal to twenty per cent of the 
enrolment fee received by it under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates 
Act.114 This decision will not have any effect on the obligation of the 
SBCs under Section 15 because they will continue to charge the 
enrolment fee as stipulated under Section 24(1)(f).
107.	The SBCs and the BCI are directed to ensure that the fees charged 
at the time of enrollment
comply with Section 24(1)(f) and the 
provision is not defeated either directly or indirectly under the garb 
of different nomenclatures. The SBCs cannot charge an enrolment 
fee or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed in Section 
24(1)(f). No case is made out for this Court to  exercise its power 
under Article 142 to implement the BCI Draft Enrolment Rules in 
their current form.
108.	The result of this decision would have entitled advocates who have 
paid the excess enrolment fee to a refund from the SBCs.115 The 
SBCs have been levying the enrolment fees for a considerable 
113	 “2001 Act”
114	 Section 15, Advocates Welfare Fund Act 2001. [It reads:
15. Payment of certain monies to Fund by State Bar Council – The State Bar Council shall pay to the 
Fund annually an amount equal to twenty per cent of the enrolment fee received by it under clause (f) of 
Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961).]
115	 See Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd v. State of U.P. (2001) 5 SCC 519 [46]
1548
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
duration and utilizing the collected amounts to carry out their day-to-
day functioning. Therefore, we declare that this judgment will have 
prospective effect. Resultantly, the SBCs are not required to refund 
the excess enrolment fees collected before the date of this judgment. 
I.	
Conclusions
109.	In view of the above discussion, we conclude that:
a.	
The SBCs cannot charge “enrolment fees” beyond the express 
legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands; 
b.	
Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the fiscal pre-conditions 
subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls. 
The SBCs and the BCI cannot demand payment of fees other 
than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a 
pre-condition to enrolment; 
c.	
The decision of the SBCs to charge fees and charges at the 
time of enrolment in excess of the legal stipulation under 
Section 24(1)(f) violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the 
Constitution; and 
d.	
This decision will have prospective effect. The SBCs are not 
required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected before 
the date of this judgment.
110.	In view of the above, the writ petition, transferred cases and transfer 
petitions are disposed of.
111.	 Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Matters disposed of.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan