Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India has ruled that the high enrollment fees imposed by State Bar Councils are unconstitutional as they infringe on aspiring lawyers' right to practice and undermine principles of equality.

• The Court mandated a cap on these fees, setting Rs.750 for general category advocates and Rs.125 for SC/ST advocates, emphasizing that such fees should not discriminate against marginalized groups. 

What was the Background of Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India Case? 

• The Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act) was enacted to amend and consolidate laws relating to legal practitioners and create a common Bar for India. 
•  The Act establishes State Bar Councils (SBCs) and the Bar Council of India (BCI). 
• SBCs are responsible for admitting advocates, maintaining rolls, handling misconduct cases, and safeguarding advocates' rights. 
• BCI's functions include setting professional conduct standards, overseeing SBCs, and regulating legal education. 
• To be admitted as an advocate, one must meet specific qualifications outlined in Section 24 of the Act. 
• Section 24(1)(f) stipulates the enrolment fees payable to SBCs and BCI. 
•  SBCs charge additional fees beyond the statutory enrolment fees, ranging from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 42,000 in total. 
•  A petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) challenging these additional fees as violating Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. 
• SBCS fee structure is violative of Article 19(1)(g), authorities can impose fees only as per the legislative intent of the parent Act. 
• The quintessential link between the right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) and how it impacts the other fundamental rights- the right to dignity under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14. 
•  The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition, recognizing it as a significant issue. 
•  Similar petitions from various High Courts were transferred to the Supreme Court for consideration. 
•  The main issues to be addressed are whether the enrolment fees charged by SBCs contravene Section 24(1)(f) of the Act, and whether other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that exorbitant enrollment fees charged by State Bar Councils (SBCs) violate an aspiring lawyer's right to choose a profession and dignity under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the COI.  
• The Court ruled that enrollment fees cannot exceed Rs. 750 for general category advocates and Rs. 125 for SC/ST category advocates. 
• The Court emphasized the link between the right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) and its impact on the right to dignity under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14. 
• The Court found that high enrollment fees create barriers to entering the legal profession, particularly for those from marginalized and economically weaker sections, thus violating the principle of substantive equality. 
• The Court held that the excessive enrollment fees set by SBCs are manifestly arbitrary under Article 14 and create economic barriers for lawyers from marginalized sections. 
• The Court interpreted the purpose of the Advocates Act to promote inclusivity of the bar, which cannot be defeated by implementing arbitrary enrollment fee measures. 
• The Court ruled that the SBCs' policy to charge exorbitant fees is manifestly arbitrary and not in conformity with Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. 
• The Court observed that the right to practice law is both statutory under Section 30 of the Advocates Act and fundamentally protected by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). 
• The Court held that the current enrollment fee structure charged by SBCs is unreasonable and infringes Article 19(1)(g). 
• The Court concluded that SBCs cannot charge enrollment fees beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. 
• The Court ruled that SBCs and BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrollment fee and stamp duty as a pre-condition to enrollment. 
• The Court's decision will have prospective effect, and SBCs are not required to refund excess enrollment fees collected before the date of this judgment. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it? 

Advocate Act,1961:

• Section 24 of Advocate Act 1961 deals with Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll. 
• Section 24(1)(f) prescribed that 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. 

Constitution Law:

• Article 14 deals with equality before law. 
  • Article 14 states that The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. 
• Article 19 deals with the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.  
  • Article 19(1) (g) states all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. 
• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. 
  • Article 21 states that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• Principles set out for levy of fees by authorities:  
  • The power to impose restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and must be exercised reasonably. 
  • Fees or licenses must be valid and levied based on the authority of law. 
  • Delegated legislation contrary to or beyond the scope of the parent legislation's policy places an unreasonable restriction, violating Article 19(1)(g). 

Right to Profession, Dignity, and Equality: 

• Right to Profession: Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India "All citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business." 
  • Subject to Article 19(6), which allows for reasonable restrictions. 
• Right to Dignity: Article 21 of the Constitution of India "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." 
  • The Supreme Court has interpreted this to include the right to live with human dignity. 
• Right to Equality: Article 14 of the Constitution of India "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." 
• These fundamental rights are often read together by the courts to ensure substantive equality and protection of individual dignity in professional spheres. 

What are the Major Case Laws Referred to in this Case? 

• Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2023):  
  • The court held that ensuring equality in outcomes through various forms of affirmative action contributes to the larger aim of substantive equality. 
• Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State of Karnataka (1996):  
  • Established principles for challenging delegated legislation: a) The test of arbitrary action for executive actions doesn't necessarily apply to delegated legislation. b) Delegated legislation can only be struck down if manifestly arbitrary. c) Manifest arbitrariness occurs when not in conformity with the statute. d) Delegated legislation is also manifestly arbitrary if it offends Article 14. 
• Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee (1952):  
  • Focused on the validity of bylaws and the scope of authority in imposing license fees. 
  • Justice SR Das held that the license fee affected business owners by: (1) Taking away their property (money) (2) Restricting their right to do business 
  • The license fee was found to violate Article 19(1)(g) and didn't fall under 'reasonable restrictions'. 
• R M Seshadri v. District Magistrate (1954):  
  • A Constitution bench case dealing with conditions imposed on movie theater licensees. 
  • The court found the conditions to be vague, widely couched, and lacking clear instructions. 
  • These conditions were held to violate Article 19(1)(g) as they harshly affected the cinema business.