Enrolment Fees of Advocates

             Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India [2024] GCtR 2040 (SC). 

Article 265 of the Constitution stipulates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law. Article 366(28) defines taxation or tax to include the imposition of a tax or impost, whether general, local or special.

A fee is an impost in terms of Article 366(28); (ii) the expression “tax” occurring in Article 265 means all imposts, including fees and therefore any fee must be levied by the authority of a valid law; (iii) fees being a compulsory exaction of money, the power to levy fees cannot be implied; (iv) delegation of the power to levy fees to a delegate of the legislature should be specifically provided for under the parent legislation; and (v) the delegate must strictly act within the parameters of the legislative policy laid down by the parent legislation when levying fees and taxes. 

Conclusion arrived at were as follows : - 

The State Bar Councils cannot charge “enrolment fees” beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of Advocates Act, 1961 as it currently stands.

Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the fiscal pre-conditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls. The State Bar Councils and the BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a pre-condition to enrolment.

The decision of the State Bar Councils 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.