Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Petition Challenging AIBE Fees, Says, BCI Needs To Survive

On February 24, 2025 (Yesterday), the Supreme Court (SC) bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a petition challenging the fees and other incidental charges of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The Advocate filed the petition, appearing as petitioner-in-person, and argued that the BCI (Bar Council of India) charges Rs. 3500 for the AIBE, which is violative of the top court’s decision in the Gaurav Kumar case. In the Gaurav Kumar case, the three-judge bench of the SC constituting former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice JB Pardiwala held that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs. 750 and Rs. 125 for advocates belonging to the general category and SC/ST categories, respectively, as mentioned in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

During the proceedings, Justice Pardiwala 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?” He further questioned, “Why did you (the petitioner) invoke Article 42 jurisdiction?... You should have gone to some High Court.” To this, the petitioner replied that the main issue was about the fundamental rights of young advocates who want to practice but are not able to do the same because the current fee violates their rights. 

After hearing the matter, the SC bench ordered, “This petition filed in public interest is one relating to the fees of the All India Bar Exams. To be precise, the prayer in this writ petition reads as under... The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, appearing in person invited the Court's attention to the decision in Gaurav Kumar vs. 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 petitioner should bring it to the notice of the Bar Council of India that this amount of Rs.3500 plus incidental charges is 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.”

Overall, it can be concluded that the SC bench refused to entertain the petition and asked the petitioner to first file an appropriate representation before the BCI.