Introduction
In a significant ruling on legal education and professional entry, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition challenging the ₹3,500 fee levied by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the BCI’s power to prescribe the examination fee, clarifying that the earlier ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India—which capped enrolment fees at ₹750—does not extend to the AIBE.
The Court’s decision has settled ongoing debates around the legality of the AIBE fee structure, balancing advocates’ rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution with the BCI’s regulatory authority under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Advocate Sanyam Gandhi, appearing in person, challenged the imposition of ₹3,500 as examination fee and other incidental charges for the AIBE. He relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, which had held that Bar Councils cannot charge more than the statutorily prescribed fee for enrolment—₹750 for general category and ₹125 for SC/ST candidates—under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Gandhi argued that the AIBE fee violated:
- Article 14 (Right to Equality), as it created an unreasonable financial burden.
- Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Profession), as it restricted advocates’ entry into the profession.
- Section 24 of the Advocates Act, which, according to him, did not permit charging beyond the prescribed fee.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Bench disagreed with the petitioner’s submissions, siding with the BCI’s interpretation. The Court held that the Gaurav Kumar judgment pertained exclusively to enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils at the stage of registration, and not to the AIBE fees.
Justice Pardiwala, in fact, humorously remarked to the petitioner:
“Mr. Gandhi, you pay the ₹3,500 now. As a lawyer, you will earn ₹35,00,000…000…”
This light-hearted comment underscored the Court’s view that the fee was neither excessive nor unconstitutional.
The Court further noted:
- Different Statutory Basis: While enrolment fees are governed by Section 24 of the Advocates Act, the AIBE is conducted under Section 49, which empowers the BCI to make rules regarding professional standards and entry conditions.
- Purpose of Fee: The BCI incurs significant expenses in organizing the nationwide exam, including logistics, technology, security, and evaluation.
- Reasonableness: The amount charged is not arbitrary or prohibitive, especially considering the professional earnings potential of advocates.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the BCI’s authority.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Scope of the Gaurav Kumar Judgment
The petitioner’s main reliance was on Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court struck down arbitrary enrolment fees imposed by State Bar Councils. However, the Court clarified that this precedent applies only to enrolment fees under Section 24, not to examination fees for the AIBE.
2. Constitutionality of the AIBE Fee
The Court rejected the claim that the AIBE fee violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). It ruled that:
- The fee is uniform across all candidates, hence not discriminatory.
- It does not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right to practice law, as it is merely a condition of entry designed to ensure professional competence.
3. BCI’s Regulatory Powers
Under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the BCI is empowered to frame rules regarding:
- Standards of professional conduct and etiquette.
- Conditions for recognition of law degrees.
- Professional entry requirements, including the conduct of AIBE.
Thus, the AIBE fee is a legitimate regulatory charge, not an enrolment fee.
Arguments of the Parties
- Petitioner (Advocate Sanyam Gandhi):
- Fee violates constitutional rights (Articles 14 & 19).
- AIBE fee must be treated as part of enrolment, hence capped under Gaurav Kumar.
- Excessive fee creates barriers for economically weaker candidates.
- Respondents (Bar Council of India):
- Represented by Senior Advocate S. Gurukrishna Kumar.
- Gaurav Kumar ruling applies only to enrolment, not to examination fees.
- BCI incurs substantial expenses in conducting AIBE, justifying the charge.
- The fee is modest compared to professional benefits of qualifying as an advocate.
Significance of the Judgment
1. Clarification on AIBE Fee Legality
This ruling removes uncertainty about whether the BCI’s AIBE fee violates the Advocates Act. The Court has drawn a clear line between enrolment fees (capped by statute) and examination fees (determined by BCI rules).
2. Strengthening BCI’s Autonomy
By upholding the fee, the Court has recognized the BCI’s autonomy as a regulatory body entrusted with maintaining professional standards and ensuring only qualified candidates enter the legal profession.
3. Impact on Law Graduates
The judgment signals that aspiring lawyers must accept reasonable financial obligations as part of the profession. However, it also highlights the need for BCI to maintain transparency in how examination fees are utilized.
4. Balancing Access and Standards
While critics argue that fees may deter economically disadvantaged candidates, the Court’s ruling shows that professional regulation and quality control cannot be compromised. Future debates may focus on scholarships or fee waivers rather than elimination of the fee altogether.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.
- Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 28/2025
- Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- For Petitioner: Advocate Sanyam Gandhi (in-person)
- For Respondents: Senior Advocate S. Gurukrishna Kumar (for BCI)
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plea against the ₹3,500 AIBE fee reaffirms the Bar Council of India’s authority to regulate professional entry conditions under the Advocates Act. By clarifying that the Gaurav Kumar ruling on enrolment fees does not apply to AIBE, the Court has provided much-needed certainty on the legal framework governing advocates’ entry into practice.
While the ruling may disappoint some aspiring lawyers concerned about affordability, it underscores that the fee is a reasonable cost of professional qualification. Going forward, the focus may shift to ensuring greater financial inclusivity, possibly through scholarships, subsidies, or differential fee models, without undermining the BCI’s role in upholding the standards of the legal profession.
Also Read
