Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 877 (HP)

Vanshaj Azad v. Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-02

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the fact that the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh was charging enrollment fee in excess of what was prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. 2. When this matter was being heard by this Court, the Court was informed that similar issue was pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 3. Now, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in terms of judgment dated 30.07.2024, passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 352 of 2023, titled Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others. (2025) 1 SCC 641 , has been pleased to declare the act of the State Bar Councils of charging enrollment fee beyond the express mandate of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, to be bad in law. The conclusions of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are quoted hereinbelow:- “ I. Conclusions 118. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: 118.1. SBCs cannot charge "enrolment fees" beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands, 118.2. Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the fiscal preconditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls. SBCs and BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a precondition to enrolment; 118.3. The decision of 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; and 118.4. This decision will have prospective effect. SBCs are not required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected before the date of this judgment.” 4. Mr. Vanshaj Azad, petitioner No.1, who has made his submissions in person through video conferencing has submitted that as the act of the Bar Council of charging Enrollment fee beyond express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, has been declared as bad by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, a mandamus be issued to the respondent-Bar Council, to refund the excess Enrollment fee charged from him and other petitioners. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh has submitted that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that the State Bar Council cannot charge enrollment fee beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms of the conclusions arrived at Paragraph No. 118.4 has been pleased to specifically order that the decision will have prospective effect and said Bar Councils are not required to refund the excess enrollment fee collected before the date of this judgment. 6. To this, petitioner in person submitted that these findings returned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same do not bind this Court from issuing a mandamus, as prayed for. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Onkar Nath Dhar, (2021) 19 SCC 163 as well as High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 . 7. Having heard the respective submissions of the parties and after going through the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in person and also the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in terms of the conclusions returned in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the conclusions which have been returned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others (supra), including the conclusion returned in Paragraph No. 118.4, are in rem and binding upon this Court. 8. Article 142 of the Constitution of India provides that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe. 9. In terms of the judgment that has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Vs. 9. In terms of the judgment that has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the State Bar Councils cannot charge enrollment fee beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, as it currently stands. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act specifically lays down the fiscal preconditions subject to which an Advocate can be enrolled on State rolls and State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India cannot demand payment of fee other than the stipulated enrollment fee and Stamp Duty, if any, as a precondition to enrollment. Hon'ble Supreme Court further went on to hold that the decision of State Bar Councils to charge fee and charges at the time of enrollment in excess of the legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. It is in the backdrop of these conclusions arrived at by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it went on to thereafter hold that the decision will have prospective effect and State Bar Councils are not required to refund the excess enrollment fee collected from the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 10. This Court is of the considered view that there is a reason and a rational as to why the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue this direction. The reason obviously was that the aggrieved persons before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were made to pay enrollment fee in excess of the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. Obviously, as the petitioners were aggrieved by the excess charge of the enrollment fee, they had also sought refund thereof. It is in the backdrop of these facts that Hon'ble Supreme Court whereas on one hand was pleased to hold that the State Bar Councils cannot charge enrollment fee in excess of the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act but it thereafter went on to direct that the decision will have prospective effect and State Bar Councils are not required to refund the excess enrollment fees collected before the date of this judgment. 11. 11. Now in case, the prayer of the petitioner before this Court is acceded to by the Court then this Court would not only be passing a direction by overreaching the conclusions arrived at by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India and others (supra), but this Court shall also be negating what is contained in Paragraph No. 118.4 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 12. In fact, in the considered view of this Court as Hon'ble Supreme Court has consciously issued a direction that the judgment shall be having a prospective effect and the State Bar Councils are not required to refund the excess enrollment fee collected before the date of this judgment and as admittedly excess enrollment fee stood collected from the petitioners by the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh before the date of the delivery of this judgment, no direction can be issued to the State Bar Council to refund the same, as is being prayed for by the petitioners. 13. This Court is also of the considered view that the petitioners otherwise also cannot plead that the conclusion arrived at by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 118 of the judgment (supra) are otherwise acceptable to them, but conclusions mentioned in sub-para 4 thereof are not acceptable to them or not relatable to them. 14. Accordingly, as this Court does not concurs with the petitioners that the directions contained in Paragraph No. 118.4 do not come in the way of the petitioners for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent-Bar Council to refund the excess enrollment fee, their prayer to this extent is negated by the Court. 15. The petitions stands disposed of, accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.