The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the ₹3,500 fee charged for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). [Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India].A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the petitioner had previously been advised to first approach the BCI before escalating the matter to the Court. .The petitioner had argued that the BCI’s fee structure for the AIBE is arbitrary and violates the principles laid down in the Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India case, where the Court capped enrolment fees charged by state bar councils and the BCI. It was contended that the AIBE fee structure similarly warranted judicial scrutiny, as it imposes a significant financial burden on aspiring lawyers, potentially affecting their right to practice.While declining to entertain the PIL in February, the Court had observed that further restricting the financial autonomy of bar councils could hinder their functioning.“You want the bar councils to survive or not? We have already chopped off the upper and lower limbs. They also have staff to pay. Once you pay ₹3,500, you will start earning ₹3,50,000 also,” Justice Pardiwala had remarked during the previous hearing..During that hearing, the Bench had also noted that the issue of AIBE fees was distinct from the enrolment fees addressed in the Gaurav Kumar ruling. It advised the petitioner to make a direct representation to the BCI, allowing the body a reasonable opportunity to address the concerns raised. The Court had granted the petitioner liberty to return if no satisfactory response was received from the BCI.The petitioner subsequently approached the BCI but received no response, prompting the current plea. Taking note of this, the Court has now formally sought the BCI’s response to the petition.
The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the ₹3,500 fee charged for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). [Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India].A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the petitioner had previously been advised to first approach the BCI before escalating the matter to the Court. .The petitioner had argued that the BCI’s fee structure for the AIBE is arbitrary and violates the principles laid down in the Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India case, where the Court capped enrolment fees charged by state bar councils and the BCI. It was contended that the AIBE fee structure similarly warranted judicial scrutiny, as it imposes a significant financial burden on aspiring lawyers, potentially affecting their right to practice.While declining to entertain the PIL in February, the Court had observed that further restricting the financial autonomy of bar councils could hinder their functioning.“You want the bar councils to survive or not? We have already chopped off the upper and lower limbs. They also have staff to pay. Once you pay ₹3,500, you will start earning ₹3,50,000 also,” Justice Pardiwala had remarked during the previous hearing..During that hearing, the Bench had also noted that the issue of AIBE fees was distinct from the enrolment fees addressed in the Gaurav Kumar ruling. It advised the petitioner to make a direct representation to the BCI, allowing the body a reasonable opportunity to address the concerns raised. The Court had granted the petitioner liberty to return if no satisfactory response was received from the BCI.The petitioner subsequently approached the BCI but received no response, prompting the current plea. Taking note of this, the Court has now formally sought the BCI’s response to the petition.
