Legally Speaking | Making the legal profession more accessible for the marginalised

A look into the recent Supreme Court ruling slashing enrollment fees to State Bar Associations.

The Supreme Court on July 30 ruled that state bar councils cannot charge exorbitant enrolment fees. It ordered that in accordance with the law, the enrolment fee cannot exceed ₹750 for advocates from the general category and ₹125 for advocates belonging to the SC/ST categories. A key rationale given by the apex court was that the exorbitant fees perpetuate structural discrimination against persons from marginalised and economically weaker sections of society.

The Court stressed the need for greater representation of the marginalised community in the legal community. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Enrolment to a state bar is a necessary prerequisite to practising law in India. Prior to this judgment, different states charged different rates. For instance, the enrolment fees in Maharashtra and Goa are ₹15000 for the general category and ₹14000 for the SC/ST candidates but the enrolment fees in Odisha are ₹42100.

Last year, while upholding the validity of the All-India Bar Exam in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors, the Supreme Court remarked on the varying enrolment fees charged by different states. It observed: “We also have one caveat arising from the plea that different State Bar Councils are charging different fees for enrolment. This is something which needs the attention of the Bar Council of India, which is not devoid of the powers to see that a uniform pattern is observed and the fee does not become oppressive at the threshold of young students joining the Bar.”

The state bar councils tried to justify the fees as being necessary to equip them to render necessary services and facilities. The bars also noted that it was a one-time fee and they did not collect any fees subsequently.

Dismissing, these arguments the Supreme Court held that the enrolment fee cannot be higher than what is prescribed by law. It stated that state bar councils may charge appropriate fees for their services subsequently. A high enrolment fee perpetuated a culture of systemic exclusion and discrimination.

The Supreme Court elaborated upon the struggles of a student be it at the stage of preparation for the entrance exams, loans for college fees, internships etc. The Court noted: “The structure of the Indian legal setup is such that the struggle for getting acceptance in chambers and law firms is greater for those who belong to the marginalised sections, first-generation advocates, or law graduates without a degree from a National Law University.” Elaborating on this the Court noted that the marginalised do not enjoy the same social capital and network as the mainstream community, which hinders their ability to thrive in the legal profession.

The Court stressed the need for greater representation of the marginalised community in the legal community.

Author George H Gadbois Jr, in his 2011 book, Judges of Supreme Court of India 1950-1989 noted the lack of representation of Dalits and Adivasis. His study revealed that in this period about 42.9% of the judges were Brahmins, 49.4% were from other upper castes and only 2.6% were Daits. There was no Adivasi judge.

Gadbois attributed the traditional privilege of Brahmins which allowed them to adapt to the modern English education introduced by the British, and thrive. Since then, the situation while better is still worrying. As per data released by the law ministry in 2023, of the 650 High Court Judges appointed since 2018, 492 (75.6%) belonged to the general category, 20 (8.4%) to the SC category, 12 (1.8%)to the ST category, 77 (11.8%) to the OBC category and 36 (5.5%) to minorities.

Justice Krishna Iyer had told author Gadbois in 1980 that the Supreme Court was mainly “Brahmin and upper class.” In fact, it was only after President K.R. Narayanan directly wrote to the then Chief Justice of India, A.S. Anand, about the lack of Dalit representation in the higher judiciary despite the presence of capable candidates, that Justice K.G. Balakrishnan was appointed in 2000. Balakrishnan went on to become the first Dalit Chief Justice of India.

One of the biggest reasons for the low representation is that there are fewer lawyers from marginalised communities, making the chance of them getting elevated even less. The American Bar Association, Center for Human Rights, undertook a research study titled, “Challenges for Dalits in South Asia’s Legal Community” in 2021. The third chapter of the report focussed on India and concluded that there were several structural challenges at different levels be it at the bench or bar which prevented equal representation. The report also noted that lawyers from the marginalised sections are often denied mentorship, professional opportunities, and access to networks due to their caste.

Caste is omnipresent in India and affects daily life in explicit and implicit ways. Determined at birth, it shapes the opportunities and quality of life one enjoys. One of the best methods to fight the evil is representation. As noted by Chief Justice Chandrachud in his judgement abolishing the exorbitant fees: “Greater representation of the marginalised communities in the legal profession will increase the diversity within the profession, enable the marginalised sections to trust the legal system and facilitate the delivery of legal aid and services to unrepresented communities.”

Parijata Bharadwaj, a lawyer and researcher based in New Delhi, co-founded the Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group that offered legal services to adivasis in Chhattisgarh. The views expressed are personal.