Bombay High Court: State Bar Councils Cannot Charge Transfer Fees for Enrollment Shifts

August 31, 2025 at 11:24 am Courtroom Today 2 min read

The Bombay High Court has ruled that State Bar Councils cannot demand any fee when an advocate shifts enrollment from one State roll to another. Such charges, the Court said, violate Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

A Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Shyam C. Chandak gave this ruling while hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Devendra Nath Tripathi. He had challenged the ₹15,405 fee collected by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) when his enrollment was transferred from the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council in 2014.

Case Background

Tripathi was first enrolled with the UP Bar Council in 2003. After moving to Mumbai, he applied in 2013 to transfer his enrollment to BCMG. However, despite Section 18(1) clearly stating that transfers must be done “without the payment of any fee,” BCMG charged him:

₹1,900 to UP Bar Council
₹11,490 to BCMG
₹2,015 to the Bar Council of India

Tripathi argued that this fee was imposed under a BCMG resolution from 2010, which was against the law. He also objected to the retrospective calculation of fees from 2003, when he was not a BCMG member.

Petitioner’s Arguments

He relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2023), which held that neither State Bar Councils nor the Bar Council of India can collect fees not mentioned in the Advocates Act. Tripathi urged the Court to stop Bar Councils from levying transfer fees.

Respondent’s Stand

BCMG’s counsel said the council would not oppose the prayer if the decision applied only prospectively. No one appeared for the Bar Council of India.

Court’s Findings

The Bench emphasised that Section 18(1) clearly prohibits charging fees for transfer of enrollment. It referred to the Supreme Court’s view in Gaurav Kumar, which warned Bar Councils against imposing exorbitant and unauthorised fees.

While BCMG relied on its 2010 resolution, the Court held that no resolution can override a statutory provision. The collection of transfer fees was therefore unlawful.

Final Decision

The Court allowed the petition with respect to prayer “A” and declared that charging transfer fees for shifting enrollment between State Bar Councils is not permitted under law. The ruling will apply prospectively, since Tripathi did not press for refund or compensation. No order on costs was made.