'Can't Help If You Don't Challenge Exam Rules': Punjab & Haryana High Court On Plea Against BCI Charging Fees For AIBE

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the petitioner challenging the fees charged by Bar Council of India for All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to challenge the Examination rule to enable the Court to look into the grievances.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel referring to Section 24 of the Advocates Act said the person can be admitted as advocates on a State roll, "subject to the provisions of the Act, and the rules made thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll...this is all subject to rules, you challenge the rules...if you don't challenge the examination rules, how can we help then?."

Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with the liberty to file fresh plea to challenge the Examination Rules drafted by BCI.

The PIL was filed by Tushar Tanwar, a lawyer by profession who highlighted there is no enabling provision under the statute to empower the BCI to charge examination fee for AIBE.

It sought issuance of direction declaring that the fee charged by the BCI on account of application fees for AIBE of Rs.3500 plus other incidental charges from General/OBC candidates and Rs.2500 plus other incidental charges from SC/ST candidates violates section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and infringes Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution and is against the judgment of the Apex Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India.

While setting clear limits on the State Bar enrolment fees, the Supreme Court had clarified in Gaurav Kumar case that any amount collected by them from lawyers as a pre-condition to enrol them would amount to 'enrolment fee'.

The Apex Court had also emphasized that Bar Councils should find other ways to collect fees from enrolled advocates for their services. The bench had advised SBCs and BCI to develop fair methods for charging fees. These methods should consider both new law graduates and already enrolled advocates. "Opposing the plea, counsel appearing for the BCI submitted that, initially, there was no provision for the AIBE, which is why it is not mentioned in the Advocates Act. However, considering that law is a noble profession and to raise professional standards, the exam was later introduced by the BCI under the AIBE Rules.

He further submitted that Gaurav Kumar judgement is applicable on the pre-enrolment procedure but AIBE is post-enrolment hence the fees charged for the AIBE is not a "pre-condition to enrol them would amount to 'enrolment fee'."

Considering that the petitioner needs to challenge the AIBE Rules, the Court allowed the plea to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one.

Title: Tushar Tanwar v. Bar Council of India