The Supreme Court on August 25, 2025 issued notice in a petition challenging the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council’s practice of demanding Rs.14,000 from newly enrolled advocates under the head of “certificate of practice.” The Court observed that the communication issued by the State Bar Council appeared to be in direct conflict with its earlier judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024).

 

In Gaurav Kumar (decided on July 30, 2024), the Supreme Court had categorically held that Bar Councils cannot levy enrolment fees beyond the ceiling prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The statute fixes the maximum enrolment fee at:

• Rs. 750 for general category candidates

• Rs. 125 for SC/ST candidates

 

Thus, the Court clarified that no State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India can charge amounts over and above these statutory fees, whether styled as “enrolment fee” or “optional fee.”

 

When the present matter, filed by advocate Deepak Yadav, came up before a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, the Court initially questioned why such petitions were being filed repeatedly after a clear ruling had already been delivered in Gaurav Kumar.

 

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that:

• Before the Gaurav Kumar ruling, the UP Bar Council used to charge Rs.16,500 as enrolment fees.

• After the ruling, instead of reducing the fee to the statutory limit, the Bar Council began charging Rs.14,000 under the guise of “certificate of practice.”

• An official communication dated July 20, 2025 from the UP Bar Council confirms this demand.

 

Court’s Observation

 

Taking note of the July 20 communication, the bench remarked:

 

 

Accordingly, the Court issued notice in the matter.

 

Earlier this year, another bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan reiterated that neither the Bar Council of India nor any State Bar Council can collect additional sums in the name of optional or administrative fees at the stage of enrolment.

 

The latest petition therefore raises concerns about systemic non-compliance with the Court’s binding directions.