Transfer Fee From Lawyers

 

 

IN THE judgement of the case – Devendra Nath Tripathi v. Union of India & others, delivered on August 21, 2025, Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Shyam C. Chandak, at the Bombay High Court, have pointed out that section 18(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, clearly mandates that transfer of enrollment from one State to the other is to be carried out on the direction of the BCI without payment of any fee. In the present case, the enrollment of the petitioner has been transferred on his application but upon realising the fee. None has appeared on behalf of the Bar Council of India (BCI), the respondent -3 to clarify its stand in the matter.

 

Be that as it may, while dealing with an issue of similar nature, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India & others(W.P. Civil 352/ 2023), that State Bar Councils cannot charge enrollment fee beyond the mandate of section 24(1)(f) of the Act of 1961. In that case, the core issue arising for decision of the court was as to whether enrollment fees charged by the in contravention of section 24(1)(f) of the Act was valid in law. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. He was originally enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. After practicing there for some years, the petitioner shifted his residence to Mumbai and started practicing law there. On September 25, 2013, the petitioner had applied for transfer of his enrollment from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra under the Bar council of Maharashtra and Goa. According to the petitioner, as per the mandate of section 18 of the Act, transfer of enrollment is required to be done free of cost. Notwithstanding the same, for processing the transfer of enrollment of the petitioner to the State Bar council of Maharashtra and Goa, he was charged an amount of Rs 15,405/- as transfer fees.

 

The break-up of the said amount is, Rs 1900 to Bar Council of UP, Rs 11,490/- to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Rs, 2015/- to Bar Council of India. The petitioner, who appeared in person, invited the attention of the HC to the reply of April 20, 2015, submitted on March 20, 2015 to the RTI application submitted on the March 20, 2015, to submit that the transfer fee was charged from him in deference to Resolution No. 12 of 2010 adopted by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, permitting such realisation of fee, which is completely illegal. It is further, the case of the petitioner that although the actual year of his transfer from UP to Maharashtra was in 2014, the transfer fee from him was realised retrospectively from 2003, thus compelling him to pay the fees for the period for 2003 to 2014 during which period he was not a Member of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

 

The petitioner has therefore filed this petition in the HC seeking Minutes of meeting held on September 26, 2010 and the resolutions passed by the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and after perusing the same restrain/stay/quash: 1. Charging transfer fee under section 18; 2. charging transfer fee from retrospective effect and 3. Erroneous calculation of fee. Since the relief prayed for by the petitioner is on the basis of section 18 of the Act of 1961, detailed reading of the said provision will be beneficial to understand the issue: 18. Transfer of name from one State roll to another:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 17, any person whose name is entered as an advocate on the roll of any State Bar Council may make an application in prescribed form to the Bar Council of India for the transfer of his name from the roll of that State Bar Council to the roll of any other State Bar Council and, on receipt of any such application, the Bar Council of India shall direct that the name of such person shall, without the payment of any fee, be removed from the roll of the first mentioned state Bar Council and entered in the roll of the other State Bar Council and the State Bar Councils concerned shall comply with such direction; Provided that where any such application for transfer is made by a person against whom any disciplinary proceeding is pending or where for any other reason it appears to the Bar Council of India that the application for transfer has not been made bona fide and that the transfer should not be made, the BCI may, after giving the person making the application an opportunity of making a representation in this behalf, reject the application.

 

(2) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that where on an application made by an advocate under the sub-section (1), his name is transferred from the roll of one State Bar Council to that of another, he shall retain the same seniority in the latter roll, to which he was entitled in the former roll. In this case, it appears that the amount was charged from the petitioner in accordance with the Resolution No. 112 of 2010 adopted by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in its meeting held on September 26, 2010, whereby the State Bar Council was authorised to collect the enrollment fee as per the ‘Schedule of Rates’ provided therein. However, the fact remains that realisation of such fee was not permissible under section 18(1) of the Act. On applying the ratio of the Gaurav Kumar Decision, it is clear that the fee charged by the respondent-1 in the case of the petitioner cannot be held 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. This Order would have prospective effect only. In result, allowing the petition, the HC has granted relief only to the extent of declaring charging of Transfer fee illegal. Other prayers including the refund of charged fee were not pressed by the petitioner.