IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the fact that the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh was charging enrollment fee in excess of what was prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

2. When this matter was being heard by this Court, the Court was informed that similar issue was pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

3. Now, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in terms of judgment dated 30.07.2024, passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 352 of 2023, titled Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others. (2025) 1 SCC 641, has been pleased to declare the act of the State Bar Councils of charging enrollment fee beyond the express mandate of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, to be bad in law. The conclusions of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are quoted hereinbelow:-

“I. Conclusions

118. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that:

118.1. SBCs cannot charge "enrolment fees" beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands, 118.2. Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the fiscal preconditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls. SBCs and BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a precondition to enrolment;

118.3. The decision of 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

118.4. This decision will have prospective effect. SBCs are not required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected before the date of this judgment.”

4. Mr. Vanshaj Azad, petitioner No.1, who has made his submissions in person through video conferencing has submitted that as the act of the Bar Council of charging Enrollment fee beyond express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, has been declared as bad by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, a mandamus be issued to the respondent-Bar Council, to refund the excess Enrollment fee charged from him and other petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh has submitted that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that the State Bar Council cannot charge enrollment fee beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms of the conclusions arrived at Paragraph No. 118.4 has been pleased to specifically order that the decision will have prospective effect and said Bar Councils are not required to refund the excess enrollment fee collected before the date of this judgment.

6. To this, petitioner in person submitted that these findings returned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same do not bind this Court from issuing a mandamus, as prayed for. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Onkar Nath Dhar, (2021) 19 SCC 163 as well as High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267.

7. Having heard the respective submissions of the parties and after going through the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in person and also the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in terms of the conclusions returned in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the conclusions which have been returned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others (supra), including the conclusion returned in Paragraph No. 118.4, are in rem and binding upon this Court.

8. Article 142 of the Constitution of India provides that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is