No Toll for Entry: Kerala HC Strikes Down Fees for Certificate Verification in Advocate Enrollment

In a significant ruling protecting aspiring lawyers from prohibitive entry costs, the High Court of Kerala has explicitly prohibited the Bar Council from charging fees for the verification of educational certificates during the enrollment process. The division bench, comprising Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan , anchored its decision in the recent mandates issued by the Supreme Court, ensuring that administrative barriers do not hinder entry into the legal profession.

The Conflict: Tradition vs. Mandate

The case, Alan Benny v. Bar Council of Kerala , arose from a Writ Appeal challenging an interim order of a Single Judge. The appellant had been granted conditional enrollment provided they pay a fee for the verification of their academic credentials (SSLC, Plus Two, Degree, and LLB certificates).

The Bar Council of Kerala, supported by a 2017 circular from the Bar Council of India (BCI), had maintained that a charge of ₹2,500 was necessary for certificate verification. However, the appellant pointed to recent Supreme Court directions, which fundamentally altered the landscape of document verification.

Arguments at a Glance

• The Appellant’s Stance: Relying on the Supreme Court’s order in WP(C) No. 82/2023 , the petitioner argued that there is a categorical instruction for all Universities and Examination Boards to verify educational certificates without charging any fee.
• The Bar Council’s Stance: The Council relied on an internal circular (BCI:D:529/2017) issued on January 28, 2017, which authorized the collection of a ₹2,500 fee per candidate to cover the costs associated with verification.

Judicial Reasoning: A Clear Verdict

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court’s directive is absolute: the burden of verification lies with the Bar Council, and the process must be conducted free of charge by the relevant educational authorities. The Court clarified that the Bar Council is the body responsible for initiating these requests, and they are not permitted to pass the cost onto the applicant.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the broader issue of "enrollment fees," noting that such charges must strictly adhere to Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The current fee structure implemented by the BCI exceeded these limits.

Key Observations

The judgment offers several pointed takeaways regarding the administrative duties of the Bar:

> "There is a specific direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that all Universities and Examination Boards shall verify the genuineness of the educational certificates without charging any fee."

> "There is a duty cast upon the Bar Council to get the certificates of the applicant verified by the concerned Boards and Universities, without charging any fees."

> "In the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also, we do not find any entitlement on the part of the 1st respondent to collect the fees for verification."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court modified the interim order of the Single Judge, ruling that the Bar Council must process the petitioner's application—and future applications—without charging verification fees.

Acknowledging the logistical pressure of an upcoming enrollment date (January 5, 2025), the Court took a pragmatic approach: it directed the Bar Council to initiate verification immediately but permitted the petitioner to be enrolled even if the verification process is not fully completed by the date of ceremony. The Court balanced this with a safeguard, allowing the Bar Council to take appropriate action should any certificates later be found to be non-genuine.

This ruling serves as a vital precedent, preventing the inflation of enrollment costs and reinforcing that institutional verification is a service owed to the process, not a financial burden to be shouldered by the candidate.