The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Bench has held that Section 49(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the Bar Council of India to prescribe fees relating to matters governed by the Act, including fees for resumption of legal practice. Since the Bar Council of India revised its fee structure through its resolution dated July 04, 2024, effective from Aug 06, 2024, prescribing Rs. 10,000 payable to the concerned State Bar Council, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of the earlier Rs. 5,000 fees.
The Court clarified that a State Bar Council has no unfettered authority to levy charges beyond what is authorised under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder. Thus, merely describing a levy as compensatory, regulatory, or administrative does not validate it. Any compulsory fee must have a clear statutory or rule-based foundation.
Advocates returning to practice after voluntary suspension cannot seek unconditional restoration and must comply with the lawful fee structure prescribed under the governing statutory framework, added the Court.
Briefly, the petitioner, K. Sree Hareesh Kumar, was enrolled as an advocate in 1992 and voluntarily suspended his legal practice in 2001 after joining service. Upon retiring on 30 September 2025, he sought permission to resume legal practice before the Bar Council of Telangana. He was informed that around Rs. 12,000 was payable towards resumption fees and related charges. Challenging the enhancement of the resumption fee from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 through a resolution dated April 06, 2024, he approached the High Court contending that the levy lacked statutory authority.
The petitioner argued that any compulsory fee must be backed by the Advocates Act, 1961 or validly framed rules and cannot be imposed merely through an administrative resolution of a State Bar Council. He further contended that the enhanced fee was excessive, unreasonable, and an unjustified restriction on his right to practise the legal profession. During the pendency of the case, however, he paid the prescribed fee and was allowed to resume practice.
Also read Compounding of Companies Act Violation Wipes Out Auditor’s Prosecution: Patna High Court
A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Tukaramji observed that Section 49(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 specifically empowers the Bar Council of India to prescribe fees relating to matters governed by the Act, including fees for resumption of legal practice. The Court noted that the Kerala High Court’s decision in Jinan K.R. v. Bar Council of Kerala [2016 SCC OnLine Ker 36147] had already recognised that a State Bar Council cannot levy a resumption fee exceeding the amount prescribed by the Bar Council of India.
The Court further held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India [2024 INSC 558] reinforces the principle that compulsory levies must have a valid statutory or rule-based foundation. However, that judgment primarily dealt with enrolment fees and did not directly determine the fee payable for resumption of practice after enrolment.
The Court found that the Bar Council of India had revised its fee structure through a resolution dated July 04, 2024, effective from Aug 06, 2024, prescribing Rs. 10,000 payable to the concerned State Bar Council towards resumption of practice. Since the petitioner sought resumption after that date, he could not insist upon the earlier Rs. 5,000 fee structure.
Importantly, the Court clarified that merely describing a charge as regulatory, compensatory, or administrative does not automatically validate the levy. A State Bar Council must show clear statutory or rule-based authority for demanding any fee. The legality of any demand must therefore be tested against the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules.
