2024 Supreme(SC) 612

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J B PARDIWALA, JJ.
Gaurav Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
T.C.(C) No. 28 of 2023, T.C.(C) No. 29 of 2023, T.C.(C) No. 30 of 2023, T.P.(C) No. 2526 of 2023, T.P.(C) No. 1982 of 2023, T.P.(C) Nos. 2088-2089 of 2023, T.P.(C) No. 2171 of 2023, T.P.(C) No. 2123 of 2023, T.P.(C) No. 2734 of 2023, Writ Petition (C) No. 352 of 2023
Decided on : 30-07-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Enrolment as Advocate – Quantum of enrolment fees – According to legislative scheme of Advocates Act, Bar Councils must only charge amount stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) as an enrolment fee – Imposing excessive financial burdens on young law graduates at the time of enrolment causes economic hardships, especially for those belonging to marginalized and economically weaker sections of society – Current enrolment fee structure charged by SBCs is unreasonable and infringes Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution.
(2) Delegated legislation must be consistent with law under which it is made and cannot go beyond limits of policy and standards laid down in law – Legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative functions to delegated authority.

Headnote:

(A) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 24(1)(f) – Enrolment as Advocate – Quantum of enrolment fees – State Bar Councils (SBCs) charge enrolment fees stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) of Advocates Act to admit law graduates on their State roll – At the time of enrolment, SBCs also charge various “fees” and “charges” in addition to enrolment fees in the form of library fund contributions, administration fees, identity card fees, welfare funds, training fees, processing fees, certificate fees, etc. – Amount of fees charged by 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 SBC) as cumulative fees at the time of enrolment – SBCs are mandated to maintain and prepare a State roll and admit persons as Advocates on the roll if they fulfil statutory prescriptions, along with any other qualifications laid down by SBCs – Section 24(1) of Advocates Act statutorily engrafts minimum qualifications to be possessed by Advocates seeking enrolment. (Para 24)

(B) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 24(1)(f) – Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(g) – Enrolment as Advocate – Quantum of enrolment fees – According to legislative scheme of Advocates Act, Bar Councils must only charge 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, SBCs and BCI have been forcing young law graduates to cough up exorbitant amounts of money as a pre-condition for enrolment – Once Advocates are enrolled on State rolls, Bar Councils can charge fees for services provided to Advocates in accordance with provisions of the Advocates Act – It is for SBCs and BCI to devise appropriate method of charging fees that is fair and just not only for law graduates intending to enrol, but also for Advocates already enrolled on State rolls – There are several reasonable ways by which SBCs and BCI can and already do collect funds at later stages of an Advocate’s career – Only charges permissible at stage of enrolment are those stipulated under Section 24(1)(f) of 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 candidates at the time of admission are to be construed as part of the enrolment fee – Fees charged under these or any similar heads cannot cumulatively exceed enrolment fee prescribed in Section 24(1)(f) – SBCs cannot charge “enrolment fees” beyond express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands – Decision of SBCs to charge fees and charges at the time of enrolment in excess of legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution – SBCs cannot have unbridled powers to charge any fees given 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 marginalized and economically weaker sections of society – Current enrolment fee structure charged by SBCs is unreasonable and infringes Article 19(1)(g) – No case is made out for Supreme Court to exercise its power under Article 142 to implement BCI Draft Enrolment Rules in their current form – This decision will have prospective effect – SBCs are not required to refund excess enrolment fees collected before date of this Judgment. (Paras 102, 103, 104, 105 and 107)

(C) Delegated Legislation – Basic principle underlying concept of delegated legislation is that legislature cannot directly exert its will in every detail – It lays down legislative policy and delegates subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegated or subordinate authorities to carry out legislative policy – Legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative functions to delegated authority – Legislature can entrust subsidiary or ancillary legislation to delegate – Before such delegation, legislature should enunciate policy and principles for guidance of delegated authority – As a corollary, delegated authority must carry out its rule-making functions within framework of law – Delegated legislation must be consistent with law under which it is made and cannot go beyond limits of policy and standards laid down in law – Although delegated legislation enjoys presumption of constitutionality, it does not enjoy same immunity as parent legislation – Where a rule-making power is conferred upon delegate in general terms, subsequent enumeration of matters on which delegate may frame rules is illustrative and does not limit scope of general power – Enumerated matters in such a situation provide guidelines for delegated authority while framing rules in exercise of general power. (Paras 27, 28 and 29)

Facts of the case:

Proceedings under Article 32 of Constitution address challenge to validity of enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils. Grievance is that fees charged by SBCs at the time of admission of persons on State rolls are more than enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of Advocates Act 1961.

Findings of Court:

SBCs have been levying the enrolment fees for a considerable duration and utilizing collected amounts to carry out their day-to-day functioning. This judgment will have prospective effect. Resultantly, SBCs are not required to refund excess enrolment fees collected before date of this judgment.

Result : Writ petition, transferred cases and transfer petitions disposed of with directions.