Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging BCI’s Fee Structure For All India Bar Exam

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging the fees and other incidental charges of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan passed the order after the petitioner informed that pursuant to the Court’s order in an earlier round of litigation, a representation was made to the Bar Council of India but no reply was received.

The matter is next listed on July 15.

Briefly put, the petitioner (a lawyer) assails BCI’s fee structure for the All India Bar exam. He points out that BCI charges Rs.3500/- plus other incidental charges from General/OBC candidates and Rs.2500 plus other incidental charges from Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. He prays for a prohibition against BCI collecting such amounts in future and seeks refund of amounts already collected as part of application process for AIBE-XIX.

The petitioner argues that the said fee recovery by BCI is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Reliance in this regard is placed on the 3-judge bench decision in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India where it was held that enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs.750/- for advocates belonging to general category and Rs.125/- for advocates belonging to SC/ST categories, as stated in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

In February this year, the petitioner’s earlier plea was disposed of by the top Court with liberty to approach again if his representation was not decided by BCI within “reasonable time”. In the said proceedings, Justice Pardiwala underlined BCI’s needs for funds “to survive”.

“You want the Bar Council to survive or not? We have otherwise also chopped of their both upper limbs and lower limbs. You are referring to my judgment? Now, they are also to survive. They have a staff to maintain. They have to recover something. Once you pay this amount of Rs.3,500, you will start earning 3,50,000. What is the problem in initially paying Rs.3,500 to BCI?” the judge posed to the petitioner.

When the petitioner responded that the issue pertained to young advocates who want to practice but whose fundamental rights are violated, the bench asked that he first approach the BCI.

Case Title: SANYAM GANDHI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 288/2025