First generation lawyers, non-NLU grads struggle to get accepted into chambers, law firms: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday said that individuals from marginalised sections, first-generation lawyers and law graduates without a degree from a National Law University (NLU) face greater challenges in gaining acceptance in senior lawyers' chambers and law firms [Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India].The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala made the comment while ruling that enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India (BCI) for enrolment of lawyers cannot exceed the limit prescribed by the Advocates Act.It observed that lawyers, who start practice soon after graduation, earn anywhere between ₹10,000 and ₹50,000 per month, depending upon the location of their practice and the chambers they join."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 marginalized sections, first-generation advocates, or law graduates without a degree from a National Law University. A recent report suggests that many law students from the Dalit community face English language barriers, reducing their opportunities of practicing before the High Courts and the Supreme Court where the court proceedings are in English," the Court highlighted.It thus observed that in a legal system predisposed against the marginalised, the pre-condition of paying exorbitant fees in the name of enrolment fee creates a further barrier for many..The Court added that social capital and networks play an important role in the Indian legal setup in advancing legal careers - an aspect where the marginalised lag behind. Most litigation chambers hire advocates through networks and community linkages, it said."The structure of the Indian legal system is such that social capital and networks also play an important role in getting clients. The lack of social capital and network is acutely felt by advocates from marginalized communities. The marginalized sections of our society face insurmountable obstacles in navigating the Indian legal system," the bench observed.The Court also stressed on greater representation of the marginalised communities in the legal profession for diversity in the legal field. The same will enable the marginalised sections to trust the legal system and facilitate the delivery of legal aid and services to unrepresented communities, it added.The Court also took note of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act which prescribes ₹750 as enrolment fee for general category candidates and ₹125 for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribe candidates.However, it found that the candidates from the SC and ST category practically pay as much as the candidates from the general category since various State Bar Councils were charging beyond the statutory limit set by the Advocates Act."The present enrolment fee structure reinforces the socio-economic marginalization of the SCs and STs. For instance, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa charges a cumulative fee of Rupees fifteen thousand from the general candidates and Rupees fourteen thousand five hundred from SC and ST candidates. Similarly, in Manipur, the general category candidates pay Rupees sixteen thousand six hundred fifty as an enrolment fee while a candidate from the SC and ST category pays Rupees sixteen thousand fifty," it noted.Hence, it asked the BCI and State Bar Councils to ensure that the enrolment fees are brought within the scope of the limit set by the Act. .The Court in conclusion said that exorbitant enrolment fees and miscellaneous fees as a pre-condition creates a barrier to entry into the legal profession and serves to denigrate the dignity of those who face social and economic barriers in the advancement of their legal careers.This effectively perpetuates systemic discrimination against persons from marginalised and economically weaker sections by undermining their equal participation in the legal profession, it added."The current enrolment fee structure is manifestly arbitrary because it denies substantive equality," the Court held..Right to practice law a fundamental right: Supreme Court.The Court in its ruling also observed that right to practice law is not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right.It noted that Section 30 of the Advocates Act allows a lawyers, who name is entered in the State roll, to practice throughout India. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution provides that all citizens of India have the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business."Thus, the right to practice law is not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(g).104 However, the right of citizens to practice law can be regulated and is not absolute.105 Under the Advocates Act, only those advocates who are admitted on the State roll have a right to practice throughout the territory of India," the top court said.In this context, the Court also said that exorbitant enrolment fees infringes the fundamental right, especially of those belonging to the marginalised sections."Imposing excessive financial burdens on young law graduates at the time of enrolment causes economic hardships, especially for those belonging to the marginalized and economically weaker sections of the society. Therefore, the current enrolment fee structure charged by the SBCs is unreasonable and infringes Article 19(1)(g).".The Court delivered the judgment in a matter concerning high enrolment fees set by various State Bar Councils including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh.Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant represented a group of students from Kerala. Senior Advocates R Balasubramanian, Manan Kumar Mishra, S Prabakaran, Apurba Kumar Sharma, C Nageswara Rao, V Giri and Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj also appeared in the matter..[Read Judgment]