LexGAURAV KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1489 : 2024 INSC 558 Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 352 of 2023) 30 July 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the enrolment fees charged by the State Bar Councils (SBC) are in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961; whether payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment. Headnotes† Advocates Act, 1961 – s.24(1)(f) – Enrolment of advocates – Challege to the validity of Enrolment fees charged by SBCs – The grievance is that the fees charged by the SBCs at the time of admission of persons on State rolls are more than the enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act 1961: Held: While acting as a delegate of Parliament, the SBCs and the Bar Council of India (BCI) can frame rules under the Advocates Act – However, any rule enacted by the SBCs is only ancillary and cannot be so exercised to bring into existence substantive rights, obligations or disabilities not contemplated by the provisions of the parent enactment – Further, the rules must align with the object and purpose of the Advocates Act, namely, the creation of a common bar and regulation of legal practitioners and their qualifications, enrolment, right to practice, and discipline – A delegate cannot act contrary to the express provisions and object of the parent legislation – A delegate cannot widen or constrict the scope of the parent legislation or the legislative policy prescribed under it – A fiscal provision has to be construed strictly and a delegate cannot consider any circumstance, factors or condition not contemplated by the parent legislation – Section 24(1) lays down the qualifications subject to which an advocate may be admitted on a State roll – Section 24(1)(f) provides that the enrolment fee payable by general candidates is Rupees seven hundred fifty and * Author 1490 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports by SC and ST candidates, Rupees one hundred and twenty-five – Section 24(1)(f) reflects the legislative policy of the Advocates Act that subject to the fulfilment of other conditions of Section 24(1), the payment of the stipulated monetary amount will make a person eligible to be admitted as an advocate – Presently, the SBCs charge enrolment fees in the following manner: (i) they charge an enrolment fee according to the legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f), but charge miscellaneous fees, and (ii) they charge an enrolment fee beyond the legal stipulation in addition to charging miscellaneous fees – The SBCs cannot charge “enrolment fees” beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands – Therefore, prescribing enrolment fees beyond Rupees seven hundred for general candidates and Rupees one hundred twenty-five for SC and ST candidates is contrary to Section 24(1)(f) – The subject matter of enrolment fee is covered by the Advocates Act – Therefore, the SBCs, being delegated authorities, do not have any legislative powers to prescribe enrolment fees contrary to the statutory stipulation – Section 24(1) (f) specifically lays down the fiscal pre-conditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls – The SBCs 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 SBCs 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. [Paras 58, 66, 67, 68, 109(b), 109(c)] Advocates Act, 1961 – All India Bar Committee – Legal Background – discussed. Advocates Act, 1961 – A Complete Code – Admission and enrolment of advocates: Held: The provisions of the Advocates Act indicate that it provides a complete machinery to deal with the admission and enrolment of advocates – The SBCs are vested with sufficient powers to ensure effectual and complete implementation of the enactment. [Para 26] Delegated Legislation – When can a delegated legislation be challenged: Held: It is well established in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd v. Union of India [1985] 2 SCR 287 and State of Tamil Nadu v. P Krishnamurthy [2006] 3 SCR 396 that delegated legislation can be challenged on the following grounds: (i) lack of [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1491 Gaurav Kuma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.