The Bombay High Court struck down the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s practice of charging transfer fees from advocates seeking to shift their enrollment from another State Bar Council, holding it contrary to Section 18 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Division Bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Shyam C. Chandak was hearing a petition filed by advocate Devendra Nath Tripathi, who had originally enrolled with the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council in 2003 and later sought transfer to Maharashtra in 2013. He was compelled to pay a total of ₹15,405 as “transfer fees” to different Bar Councils. Tripathi argued that Section 18 of the Advocates Act clearly mandates that transfers between State Bar Councils must be effected “without the payment of any fee.”
The Court noted that the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa had relied on its Resolution No. 112 of 2010 to levy such charges, but held that this was impermissible in law. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 352 of 2023, the Bench reiterated that neither State Bar Councils nor the Bar Council of India can charge fees beyond what the Advocates Act prescribes.
Declaring the collection of transfer fees illegal, the Court clarified that its ruling will operate prospectively. Since the petitioner had not pressed his refund claim or other reliefs, the Court restricted its order to invalidating the impugned fee structure.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed to the extent of striking down the transfer fee requirement, thereby relieving future transferees of such financial burden
Appearances:
Mr Devendra Nath Tripathi, Petitioner in person with DV Saroj.
Mr Yogendra Rajgor, for Respondent No. 1.