1. The instant writ petitions challenge the constitutionality and validity of the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012 ―Delhi Act 11 of 2012‖ whereby the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has amended the Court Fees Act, 1870 in force in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

2. As per the scheme of the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 6 prescribes documents specified as chargeable with court fee in Schedules I and II to the Act and prohibits their filing, exhibition or recording in a court of justice unless fees of the indicated amount have been paid. The schedules have been divided into Schedule I dealing with ad valorem court fees and Schedule II dealing with fixed court fees.

3. By the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act 2012, Section 26 of the Court Fees Act was re-numbered as sub-section (1) thereof and sub-section (2) was inserted as follows:-

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), and section 25, ―stamp‖ means any mark, seal or endorsement by any agency or person duly authorized by the appropriate government, and includes an adhesive or impressed stamp, for the purposes of court fee chargeable under this Act.

Explanation.- ―Impressed stamp‖ includes impression by a franking machine or any other machine, or a unique number generated by e-stamping or similar software, as the Appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify.‖

4. The Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012 also substituted Schedule I and Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 by new schedules specifying ad valorem and fixed fees, as applicable to the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

5. The impugned amendment seeks to introduce ad valorem payment of documents which are included in Schedule II.

6. As these writ petitions raise similar questions of fact and law and seek the same relief, they have been taken up together for the purposes of hearing and adjudication.

7. On one side of the watershed is the view that the amendments to the Court Fees Act 1870, which is a Central legislation, by the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‗Legislative Assembly of Delhi‘), is unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires on account of lack of legislative competence, whilst on the other side exists the view that the Legislative Assembly of Delhi has the competence to amend the Central Act as the power to legislate on the subject of fees taken in all courts except the Supreme Court vests exclusively in the State Legislature, vide Entry 3 of List II.

8. W.P. (C) No.4770/2012 has been filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association through Shri Mohit Mathur, its Honorary Secretary (who is also petitioner no.2 before us). The Delhi High Court Bar Association, a representative body of advocates, seeks to safeguard the constitutional rights of citizens.

9. This writ petition has been argued before us by Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Senior Advocate and President of the High Court Bar Association.

10. The following three impleadment applications have been filed in WP(C) No. 4770/2012:

I. CM No.16545/2012 by the Dwarka Court Bar Association.

II. CM No.16845/2012 by the New Delhi Bar Association.

III. CM No.16882/2012 by the Rohini Court Bar Association.

11. Given the urgency of the matter and for the reason of expediency, these applications were heard and kept for disposal with the main writ petition and Mr. Amit Khemka, Advocate appearing for the Dwarka, New Delhi and Rohini Court Bar Associations has been heard on merits.

12. W.P. (C) No.7250/2012 has been filed by Mr. Rajiv Khosla, former President of the Delhi Bar Association. We have heard Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Senior Advocate and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association as well as Mr. Rajiv Khosla in support of this petition.

13. Mr. Krishnamani has submitted that the enhancement of court fees has been effected without taking into consideration relevant material and that the amendment completely ignores the 189^th Report of the La