Supreme Court – Daily Orders
K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu vs Karnataka State Bar Council … on 4 August, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO…………………..OF 2025
(@DIARY NO.16629/2025)
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 352 OF 2023
K. L. J. A. KIRAN BABU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL REPRESENTED
BY RAMESH S NAIK (FDA) Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.
2. Petitioner has moved this Contempt petition on the premise
that the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.352 of 2023 as regards enrolment fee which the
Bar Council of various States are entitled to collect are
not being complied with in their letter and spirit.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.08.08
17:58:35 IST
1
Reason:
3. In pursuance of the notice issued by us to the Bar Council
of India Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel has
appeared.
4. He has filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council of
India, inter-alia, stating as under:-
“I Awanish Kumar Pandey, son of Lt. Shri Ram Ekbal
Pandey, aged 55 years, occupation Additional
Secretary, Bar Council of India at Bar Council of
India, 21 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi – 110002, do hereby
state as follows:-
1. That this affidavit is filed pursuant to the order
of this Hon’ble Court dated 15.07.2025, wherein the
Hon’ble Court has sought a clarification from the Bar
Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “BCI”) on
whether the directions issued in paragraph 109 of the
judgment dated 30.07.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2023
(Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India) have been duly
complied with.
2. That for the convenience of this Hon’ble Court, it
is imperative to reproduce para 109 of the judgment
dated 30.07.2024 which reads, inter alia, as under:-
“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{l)(f) specifically lays down the
fiscal preconditions 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 of2
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.
3. That subsequent upon the judgment of this Hon’ble
Court, the BCI, to ensure uniformity and compliance,
has issued a detailed communication vide letter
bearing No. BCI:D:4088/2024 dated 06.08.2024,
addressed to the Secretaries of all State Bar
Councils, directed them to strictly proceed with the
enrolment of candidates in light of the judgment
passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 352 of
2023, titled Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India.”
4. That after issuance of the letter, the BCI has
firmly believed that all the State Bar Councils are
adhering and complying the judgment passed by this
Hon’ble Court in the matter of Gaurav Kumar (supra).
5. That, with utmost respect and a sense of dismay, the
Bar Council of India has received a copy of the order
dated 15.07.2025, passed in the present contempt
petition initiated by the petitioner against the
Karnataka State Bar Council, whereby this Hon’ble Court
has specifically directed Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra,
Chairman, Bar Council of India, to assist the Court
with respect to the compliance of its judgment,
particularly paragraph 109 thereof.
A copy of order dated 15.07.2025 passed by this Hon’ble
Court in Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 16629 of 2029
titled d K.L.J.A Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar
Council is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A/ 1
(Page No. 9 to 10).
6. That immediately upon receipt of the order dated
15.07.2025, the Bar Council of India, with prompt
action, issued a letter bearing No. BCI:D:5397/2025
dated 23.07.2025, thereby directing all State Bar
Councils to furnish details regarding the fee being
collected or charged at the time of enrolment, in light
of the judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed by this Hon’ble
Court in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2023, Gaurav Kumar v.
Union of India & Ors., within a period of three days.
A copy of letter bearing BCI:D:5397/2025 dated
3
23.07.2025 issued by the Bar Council of India is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A/2 (Page
No.11 to 12).
7. That in response to the said letter dated
23.07.2025, the State Bar Councils has duly furnished
the details that they are collecting only Rs. 750/- for
General and Rs. 125/- for SC/ST.
Fee Structure as Reported by Various State Bar Councils:
State Bar Council General/OBC SC/ST Remarks
(₹) (₹ )
Chhattisgarh, MP, Delhi, All these
Punjab and Haryana, councils
Maharashtra & Goa, Assam, affirm full
Nagaland, Mizoram, compliance
Arunachal Pradesh and Rs.125 with SC
Sikkim, Meghalaya, Tamil Rs. 750 (Rs. judgment and
Nadu and Puducherry, (Rs. 600 100 BCI
Gujarat, Rajasthan, SBC + Rs. SBC + advisories.
Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, 150 BCI) Rs. 25 No additional
Andhra Pradesh, BCI) fees
Jharkhand, Odisha, reported.
Uttarakhand, Bihar,
Manipur, Kerala, West
Bengal, Tripura,
Karnataka
Himachal Pradesh Rs. 750 Rs. 125 Also collects
(Rs. 600 (Rs. Rule-40
SBC + Rs. 100 SBC Advocates’
150 BCI) + Rs. Welfare Fund
25 BCI) fee at the
time of
enrolment.
Karnataka Rs. 750 Rs.125 Additionally
(Rs. 600 (Rs. collects
SBC+ Rs. 100 SBC optional fees
150 BCI) + totalling
Rs. 25 ₹6,800 (for
BCI) ID cards,
certificates,
welfare fund,
training,
etc.)
Jammu & Kashmir Rs. 900 Rs. 450 The said fees
(Rs. 600 (Rs. has been
4
SBC + Rs 300 SBC charged by
300 BCI) + 150 the High
BCI) Court of
Jammu and
Kashmir and
Ladakh
(Exercising
the Powers of
Bar Council
of Jammu &
Kashmir under
section 58 of
the Advocates
Act, 1961)
The details of the responses furnished by the State Bar
Council is has been annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
A/3 (Page No. 13 to 47).
A copy of Letter being No. BCI D: 4088 of 2024 Dated
06.08.2024 is has been annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE A/ 4 (Page No. 48 to 49).
8. That the Bar Council of India, as the apex statutory
body under the Advocates Act, 1961, reiterates its
unequivocal commitment to comply with the judgment dated
30.07.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 352
of 2023 in both letter and spirit. The BCI has taken prompt
and substantive steps to secure adherence by all State Bar
Councils, and continues to monitor compliance through an
institutional mechanism established for that purpose.
9. That the BCI respectfully submits that it has acted
diligently, without delay, and in full faith, and that
there is no occasion for invoking the contempt jurisdiction
of this Hon’ble Court against it”
5. According to him, all the directions issued by this Court
vide the judgment and order dated 30th July, 2024 are being
duly complied with by all the State Bar Councils across the
Country. At this stage, the contempt petitioner pointed out
that so far as the Karnataka State Bar Council is concerned,
5
they are charging amounts of Rs.6800/- and Rs.25,000/-
respectively over and above the statutory fees.
6. In this regard, Mr. Mishra pointed out that these are
optional and not mandatory.
7. We make it clear that there is nothing like optional. No
State Bar Council(s) or Bar Council of India shall collect
any fees of any amount as optional. They shall strictly
collect fees in accordance with the directions issued by
this Court in the main judgment.
8. We reiterate the directions as under:
“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 enrolment6
fees collected before the date of this judgment.”
9. If the Karnataka State Bar Council is collecting any amount
in the name of optional, though it may not be mandatory, it
must be stopped.
10. We close this Contempt Petition observing as aforesaid.
11.Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
……………….J.
[J.B.PARDIWALA]
……………….J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
New Delhi
04th August, 2025
7
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.8 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 16629/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-07-2024
in W.P.(C) No. No. 352/2023 passed by the Supreme Court of India]
K. L. J. A. KIRAN BABU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL REPRESENTED
BY RAMESH S NAIK (FDA) Respondent(s)
[MR. MANAN MISHRA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL, TO APPEAR IN THIS MATTER
AND ASSIST THE HON’BLE COURT ]
IA No. 113128/2025 – PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON
Date : 04-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANFor Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s) :
M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR
Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv.
Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.
Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, Adv.
Mrs. Usha Prabakaran, Adv.
8
Mr. Maheswaran A Prabakaran, Adv.
Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv.
Mr. Ajith Williyam S, Adv.
Mr. N Adhil, Adv.
Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.
2. The Contempt Petition is closed in terms of the signed order,
which is placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASST.REG-CUM-P.S. COURT MASTER (NSH)
9
[ad_1]
Source link