The Bombay High Court has held that State Bar Councils cannot charge any fee for transferring an advocate’s enrollment from one State roll to another, declaring such collection in violation of Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
A Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Shyam C. Chandak allowed a writ petition filed by advocate Devendra Nath Tripathi, challenging the transfer fee of ₹15,405 charged by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) when his enrollment was shifted from the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council in 2014.
Case Background
The petitioner, originally enrolled with the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in 2003, later moved to Mumbai and applied on September 25, 2013, for transfer of enrollment to BCMG. According to him, Section 18 of the Advocates Act mandates that such transfers be done “without the payment of any fee.”
Despite this, BCMG charged him:
- ₹1,900 to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh
- ₹11,490 to BCMG
- ₹2,015 to the Bar Council of India
Tripathi contended that the transfer fee was imposed under BCMG’s Resolution No. 112 of 2010, which, he argued, was contrary to law. He also objected to fees being calculated retrospectively from 2003, when he was not a member of BCMG.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Tripathi relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2023), where it was held that neither State Bar Councils (SBCs) nor the Bar Council of India (BCI) can levy fees not stipulated under the Advocates Act. He submitted that Section 18(1) clearly prohibits charging any fee for transfer of enrollment and sought to restrain the councils from levying such charges.
While the writ petition originally sought refund, interest, and compensation, Tripathi confined his claim to prayer “A” — challenging the validity of charging transfer fees.
Respondent’s Stand
Counsel for BCMG stated that, in light of Gaurav Kumar, the council would not oppose the prayer if the Court’s decision was applied prospectively. No appearance was entered for the BCI.
Court’s Analysis
The Bench reproduced Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act, which mandates transfer of an advocate’s name from one State roll to another “without the payment of any fee.”
Referring to Gaurav Kumar, the Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s observation that Bar Councils must only charge fees expressly permitted under Section 24(1)(f) and not impose exorbitant amounts as a precondition for enrollment.
The Court noted that while BCMG acted under its 2010 resolution, such a provision could not override the statutory mandate of Section 18(1). The fee charged to Tripathi was therefore “illegal … being in contravention” of the Act.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition to the extent of prayer “A”, the Court declared that charging transfer fees between State Bar Councils is impermissible. The ruling will apply prospectively, as the petitioner did not press for refund or other reliefs.
“No order as to costs” was made.
