How Can You Demand Fee For Transferring Lawyer's Enrolment When Advocates Act Bars It? MP High Court To State Bar Council

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (October 7) orally questioned the State Bar Council for demanding fee from an advocate for transferring his enrolment to the state when the Advocates Act bars such fee demand. 

For context, Section 18(1) of the Act states that a person whose name is entered as an advocate on the roll of any State Bar Council may make an application in the 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.

On receiving such application the BCI 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. 

The court was hearing an advocate's plea questioning imposition of "exorbitant" fee of Rs. 15,000 to transfer his enrolment from Delhi to Madhya Pradesh; it disposed of the plea after it was told that the state bar body had granted enrolment to the lawyer without charging any fees. 

In an earlier hearing, the high court in its interim order had directed the State Bar Council to provisionally register the name of the petitioner advocate Rohit Pathak on its rolls without charging any fees for the time being. The bar council's lawyer said that the earlier order of the high court had been complied with.

However during the hearing today, another lawyer (not a party in the petition) contended that he was facing similar issues with respect to transfer of his enrolment.

He claimed that when he had approached the State Bar Council, the bar body asked him to either wait for the High Court's directions in the present matter or pay the entire fees. He thus prayed that the court take up this matter on demand of transfer fee independently and issue appropriate directions.

The advocate for the State Bar Council argued that it was a financial matter and would be addressed in the next general body meeting. But, the court orally questioned the authority for demanding such fees, as the Advocate Act specifically states that no fees were required to transfer enrolment.

"Aap demand kaise kar sakte hain fees (How could you demand fees), when the Act says without fees", the court orally asked.

To this the counsel for the state bar council assured the court that they would reconsider the transfer fee matter in the next general body meeting.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal in its order dictated:

"Learned counsel for the State Bar Council submits that the application of the petitioner has been accepted, and the name of the petitioner has been entered in the rolls of the State Bar Council without charging any fee. He submits that in view of the specific provisions of Section 18 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which states that the Bar Council of India shall direct that the name of such a person shall, without payment of any fee, be removed from the roll of the first State Bar Council and entered in the roll of the other State Bar Council, no fee shall be charged by the State Bar Council in case of such transfer applications which are received after due approval from the Bar Council of India. The statement is taken on record and the petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms". 

The petitioner had earlier submitted that the Bar Council of India had already passed an order transferring the enrolment of the petitioner from the Bar Council of Delhi to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh.

When the other lawyer again raised the issue stating that state bar body's counsel had said that they will take up the transfer fee issue in next meeting, the court orally assured the advocate and said:

"We have directed it; now they cannot take it up. He has made a statement that they won't charge fee. You go and get your transfer done". 

The plea was disposed of.

Case Title: Rohit Pathak v Bar Council of India (WP-35160-2025)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 213

For Bar Council of India: Advocate Aditya Veer Singh

For State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh: Advocate Har Sahai Pateriya