The Bar Council of Kerala has challenged the Kerala High Court interim order directing it to enroll law students, who petitioned before the court, with statutorily prescribed nominal fee.
The Court had granted relief to ten law students who challenged the high enrollment fees charged by the State Bar Council and directed it to accept their applications as against a fee of ₹750/- instead of ₹15,900 fixed by it for time being.
The BCK, in its appeal against the single-judge bench order before the division bench that there is no statutory bar imposed on Council from levying the requisite charges to satisfy the conditions of enrolment from the candidates.
It has been argued on part of the Council that the judgement has been passed relying on Koshy T v. Bar Council of Kerala, Ernakulam, a 2017 Kerala High Court judgement ruling that the Bar Council cannot charge a higher fees and should restrict itself to norms of the Advocates Act but without analyzing its context.
"In the said case, the challenge was against the imposition of "special fees " on candidates seeking enrolment after retirement from service attaining the age of superannuation. The dictum laid down in the said decision restricting the powers of the State Bar Council in imposing "Special Fees" on retired employees seeking enrolment as advocates do not in any manner curtail the powers of the State Bar Council under Sub Section 28 (2) (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 in imposing conditions subject to which a person may be admitted on the rolls as an Advocate,” the appeal explained.
It was thus established that law entitles State Bar Councils to lay down eligibility conditions and necessary financial requirements to be satisfied by law graduates seeking enrolment and such amounts cannot be treated as part of the "enrolment fee", which is ₹750 under the Advocates Act.
The Council submitted that the interim order has left the unwanted impression that it has exceeded its rule making authority and has altered the statutory provision in self interest.
In justification of the levied charges, it further submitted that being an autonomous body which doesn't receive donations from outside, it is constrained to collect the amount to run its operations and provide services to the members.
75% of the total income of the Appellant is from the amount collected from the candidates at the time of enrolment under various heads. Out of the Enrolment charges, 20% is to be transferred to the Bar Council of India and 20% to the Advocates Welfare Fund,” the Council further explained.
It has also taken exception to the petitioner-law student's plea to declare the collection of ₹3000 towards the BCI Welfare Fund as illegal stating that the Fund constitutes a social security scheme for lawyers and the contribution is therefore mandatory, as per a notification issued under the BCI Rules.
It was stated that the various heads of the fees have been prescribed by it in the exercise of the powers bestowed on the body as per the Advocates Act and Rules and it has not been the sole repository as the resolution adopting the current fee structure has been approved by the BCI itself.
The Court has thus been urged to quash the impugned order submitting that it stalls the enrolment process in its entirety.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments