New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed shock over allegations that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has devised a unique method to circumvent the Court’s directions on advocate enrollment by conducting oral interviews of candidates and charging Rs. 2,500 from each candidate for appearing in such interviews.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Prasanna B. Varale took note of these allegations while hearing a writ petition filed by Priyadarshini Saha. The petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was allegedly conducting oral interviews of candidates seeking enrollment, seemingly to bypass the Supreme Court’s directions issued in its judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., delivered on July 30, 2024, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 352/2023.
These allegations assume particular significance in light of the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in the Gaurav Kumar case, where the Court categorically held that Bar Councils cannot levy enrollment fees exceeding the limits prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court had clarified that enrollment fees cannot exceed Rs. 750 for general category candidates and Rs. 125 for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The Court observed that, according to the petitioner, the State Bar Council has now adopted the mechanism of conducting oral interviews and is charging Rs. 2,500 from each candidate for appearing in such interviews. Terming the allegations “very shocking,” the Court issued notice to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, returnable on January 7, 2026. The Advocate-on-Record for the State Bar Council accepted and waived formal notice.
The Court directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit clarifying the allegations on the next date of hearing. In the meantime, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to look into the matter and take up the issue with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court also heard a contempt petition filed in connection with the case. After hearing counsel Kunal Chatterjee, the Court allowed the application seeking permission to file the contempt petition. Notice was issued, returnable on January 7, 2026, and the presence of the alleged contemnors was dispensed with for the time being. The Court requested learned counsel to take appropriate instructions and revert on the next date of hearing.
The matter assumes significance as it relates to the implementation of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions regarding advocate enrollment procedures and prescribed fee limits. The allegation that the State Bar Council may be circumventing judicial directions and statutory fee ceilings through oral interviews and charging substantially higher amounts has raised serious concerns about compliance and transparency in the enrollment process.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on January 7, 2026, when the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is expected to file its affidavit and the Bar Council of India is expected to report on its examination of the issue.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Naman Sherstra, Mr. Chirantan Saha, Ms. Anshuli Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Vimal, Ms. Riya Sagar, Mr. Akash Bhatt, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thalour, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Mr. Vishal Thakre, Mr. Gopal Singh, Ms. Anjale Kumari, Mr. Deepak Yadav (in person), Ms. Chhaya, Mr. Manish Nagpal, Advocates; Ms. Paromita Majumdar and Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AORs.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Mr. Rohit Bansal, Dr. Ram Sankar, Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Mr. Maheswaran Prabakaran, Mr. S. Anand, Mr. Sushant Singh, for M/s Ram Sankar & Co., Advocates; Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, and Ms. Radhika Gautam, AORs.
Case Title: Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee
