The Bombay High Court recently delivered an important judgment that carries significant implications for the legal fraternity, especially for advocates who move their practice from one state to another. The matter arose out of a petition filed by two advocates, who clarified before the court that they were not demanding a refund of the fees they had already paid. Instead, their grievance was that the very imposition of such a fee was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the law. The bench, after carefully hearing both sides, gave a decisive ruling that the fee charged by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) for transferring the enrollment of an advocate from another state was illegal.
The case was heard by Justices Suman Shyam and Shyam C. Chandak. The lead petitioner, advocate Devendra Nath Tripathi, along with advocate D.V. Saroj, placed their arguments before the court. Tripathi explained that he had initially enrolled himself as an advocate with the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and had practiced law there for several years. However, after shifting his residence to Mumbai, he continued his legal practice in the city and subsequently sought a transfer of his enrollment from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra under the BCMG.
Tripathi narrated that on September 25, 2013, he formally applied for the transfer. He pointed out that Section 18 of the Advocates Act explicitly mandates that the transfer of enrollment from one state to another must be done free of cost. In spite of this clear legal provision, he was compelled to pay an amount of Rs 15,405 as transfer fees to the BCMG for processing his application. He emphasized that this was in clear violation of the Act and hence unlawful.
Out of the total sum of Rs 15,405 that was collected, Rs 1,900 was reflected as a charge payable to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Rs 11,490 was shown as payable to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, and the remaining Rs 2,015 was attributed to the Bar Council of India. Tripathi argued that this breakdown of fees further highlighted the arbitrary nature of the charges, since the law nowhere authorizes such a collection for transfer of enrollment.
He also stressed that what made the situation even more problematic was that the BCMG had imposed this fee retrospectively from the year 2003. His own transfer took place in 2014, at a time when he was not even a member of the Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council. Yet, he was still made liable for the fee, which he contended was grossly unjust and unlawful.
During the proceedings, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa was represented by advocate Yogendra Rajgor. He submitted that the Council had no objection if the court chose to grant the petitioner’s relief. However, he argued that any such declaration by the court should only be applied prospectively and not retrospectively, to prevent complications relating to past transactions.
After hearing all sides and examining the matter in light of the statutory provisions, the bench categorically observed that the fee charged by BCMG for the transfer of enrollment was without legal basis. The judges concluded that such a fee could not be considered valid in the eyes of the law, as it directly contradicted Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act. Consequently, the court declared the collection of such a fee to be illegal.
At the same time, the bench made it clear that the effect of this judgment would only operate prospectively. This meant that while the court recognized the illegality of the fee, its ruling would apply only to future cases and not disturb the fees that had already been collected in the past. With this ruling, the court not only provided relief to the petitioners but also set a precedent for advocates across the country who may face similar issues in the future.
