Bombay High Court strikes down Bar Council transfer fee for lawyers shifting practice to Maharashtra

The Bombay High Court recently held that the transfer fee charged by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for shifting an advocate’s enrollment from another State Bar Council to Maharashtra is illegal and in direct violation of Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 [Devendra Nath Tripathi and Ors v Union of India and Ors]..A Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Shyam Chandak passed the order on a plea by a lawyer who sought to shift his enrolment from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra.“By applying the ratio laid down in the decision of Gaurav Kumar (supra) to the facts of this case, the fee charged by the Respondent No. 1 (Centre) for transfer of Petitioner’s enrollment cannot be held to be valid in the eyes of law. Therefore, the same is declared to be illegal on the ground of the same being in contravention of the mandate of Section 18(1) of the Act of 1961,” the Court said in its order of August 21. .The petitioner, Devendra Nath Tripathi, was initially enrolled with the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council in 2003.After relocating to Mumbai, he applied on September 25, 2013 for a transfer of his enrollment to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.However, he was charged ₹15,405 as transfer fees, ₹1,900 to the Bar Council of UP, ₹11,490 to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, and ₹2,015 to the Bar Council of India..The transfer was effected in 2014 but the fee was calculated retrospectively from 2003.Tripathi, appearing in person, argued that under Section 18 of the Advocates Act, such transfers must be carried out without the payment of any fee.He submitted that the fees were charged in reference to Resolution No. 112 of 2010 adopted by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, which permitted such fees. He contended this was completely illegal and that his case was supported by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India & Ors., where the apex Court had dealt with the scope of fee collection by State Bar Councils.The Counsel appearing for the Central government stated that if the only grievance of the petitioner was with respect to realisation of transfer fee, he would not oppose the prayer, provided any decision of the Court was given effect to prospectively. No appearance was made on behalf of the Bar Council of India or other respondents.While holding the fee illegal, the Court noted that the petitioner was not pressing for any relief other than prayer which sought quashing of the fee mechanism. The Court allowed the petition only to that extent and clarified that its order would operate prospectively..Advocate Devendra Nath Tripathi appeared in person assisted by advocate DV Saroj. Advocate Yogendra Rajgor appeared for Union of India.[Read Order]