IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Ravichandragouda R. Patil – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Bar Council – Respondent
ORDER :
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
1. The petitioner in-person is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
i. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1-Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) to refund the amount collected from the petitioner in excess of the statutory enrolment fee prescribed under Section24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961;
ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the impugned notification/notice issued by the KSBC under office Nos.080-22868712/080-22868561 (Annexure-A) prescribing a sum of Rs.6800/- under the head “other fees” and other purported mandatory fees for enrolment; and further declare that the current system of collecting fees beyond the statutory enrolment fee under section 24(1)(f) of the advocates act, 1961 is ultra vires, illegal, and unconstitutional;
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction directing the KSBC to forthwith cease the practice of collecting any amount under any head or nomenclature in excess of the statutory limit at the time of enrolment, and further direct the Bar Council of India (BCI) to ensure compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Go

Fees charged in excess of the statutory enrolment fee under the Advocates Act, 1961, are impermissible and unconstitutional.
The charging of enrolment fees exceeding statutory limits is impermissible and violates fundamental rights under the Constitution.
(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 – ....
State Bar Councils cannot charge enrollment fees beyond the limits set by law, and such decisions have prospective effect without requiring refunds of previously collected excess fees.
The court affirmed the statutory enrollment fee limit set by the Advocates Act, ordering the refund of excess fees collected.
The abrupt increase of the nomination fee for elections to Rs.1,25,000 without following due legal process violates democratic principles and is deemed arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The court emphasized the need for transparency and convenience in the enrolment process, while upholding the requirement of proof of residence as necessary for maintaining discipline and regulatory c....
(1) Bar Examination and pre-enrolment training – Bar Examination and pre-enrolment training – Quality of lawyers is an important aspect and part of administration of justice and access to justice – H....
The impugned Government order was illegal and arbitrary as it was issued in exercise of power under Section 7 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitati....
Point of law: The right to establish an educational institution can be regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.