AIBE Fees: SC urges petitioner to file representation before BCI, check details

The petitioner argued that the Bar Council of India (BCI) charges INR 3,500 for the AIBE, allegedly violating the Supreme Court's ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. UOI (2024). In the Gaurav Kumar case, a three-judge bench led by former CJI DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ruled that the enrolment fee cannot exceed INR 750 for general category advocates and INR 125 for SC/ST advocates, as per Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

AIBE Fees: SC urges petitioner to file representation before BCI, check details

The Supreme Court heard a petition filed by an advocate challenging the fees and incidental charges for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) today. The petitioner argued that the Bar Council of India (BCI) charges INR 3,500 for the AIBE, allegedly violating the Supreme Court's ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. UOI (2024).

Background: Gaurav Kumar Judgment

In the Gaurav Kumar case, a three-judge bench led by former CJI DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ruled that the enrolment fee cannot exceed INR 750 for general category advocates and INR 125 for SC/ST advocates, as per Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Court Proceedings and Observations

A bench of Justices Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the matter. They allowed the petitioner to first make a representation to the BCI. If no response is received within a reasonable time, or if the response is negative, the petitioner can approach the Supreme Court again. During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala remarked, "You want the Bar Council to survive or not? They need funds to maintain their staff. Once you pay INR 3,500, you will start earning INR 3,50,000. What's the issue with paying this amount initially?"

He also questioned the petitioner’s decision to invoke Article 32 jurisdiction, suggesting that the matter could have been raised before a High Court. In response, the petitioner argued that the fee structure violates the fundamental rights of young advocates.

The Court ordered:

• The petitioner should make a representation to the BCI about the alleged violation of the Gaurav Kumar judgment.
• If no response is received within a reasonable time or if the response is negative, the petitioner can return to the Supreme Court.
• This development has sparked discussions about the financial challenges faced by aspiring advocates and the BCI’s need for operational funds.

Also Read:

AIBE 19 Result 2024-25 LIVE: Check XIX Result Date, Scorecard Link @allindiabarexamination.com