Today, the Supreme Court heard a petition filed by Advocate, appearing as petitioner-in-person, challenging the fees and other incidental charges of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

As per the petitioner, the Bar Council of India (BCI) charges Rs. 3,500 for the AIBE, which is in violation of the Supreme Court's judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. UOI (2024).

In the Gaurav Kumar judgment, a three-judge bench comprising former CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra ruled that, as per Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the enrolment fee for advocates cannot exceed ₹750 for those in the general category and ₹125 for those belonging to SC/ST categories.

A bench of Justices Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan after briefly hearing the petitioner, passed an order giving liberty to the petitioner to first make a representation before the BCI. If he does not get a response from the BCI without a reasonable time, he can approach the Court.

At the outset, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked that BCI needs funds from somewhere to continue surviving. He said: "You want the Bar Council to survive or not? We have otherwise also chopped of their both upper limbs and lower limbs. You are referring to my judgment? Now, they are also to survive. They have a staff to maintain. They have to recover something. Once you pay this amount of Rs.3,500, you will start earning 3,50,000. What is the problem in initially paying Rs.3,500 to BCI?"

Justice JB Pardiwala questioned the petitioner on invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32, remarking, "You should have gone to some High Court." In response, the petitioner argued that the matter concerns the fundamental rights of young advocates seeking to practice, asserting that the existing fee structure violates their rights.

"This petition filed in public interest is one relating to the fees of the All India Bar Exams. To be precise, the pray in this writ petition reads as under... The petitioner, a practising Advocate, appearing in person invited the Court's attention to the decision in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India...The petitioner would submit that in view of this decision, the recovery of Rs.3500 plus other incidental charges as a condition precedent for appearing in AIBE is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. We are of the view that the petitioenr should be bring it to the notice of the Bar Council of India that this amount of Rs.3500 plus incidental charges are violative or rather contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court. It shall be open for the petitioner to prefer an appropriate representation and wait for the response of the BCI. If there is no response without reasonable time, he may come back. Even if there is a negative response, he may come back."