11 August 2025 Legal Updates

BAR COUNCILS CAN'T COLLECT ANY AMOUNT AS "OPTIONAL FEE" DURING ENROLMENT: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 4, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

This contempt petition was filed because the Karnataka State Bar Council was allegedly not complying with the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dated July 30, 2024, in the case of Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India regarding enrolment fees for advocates.

Key Issues

The main issue was whether State Bar Councils were properly following the Court's directions about limiting enrolment fees to only what is legally permitted under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Supreme Court's Previous Directions (from Gaurav Kumar case)

The Court had earlier ruled that:

• State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge enrolment fees beyond what Section 24(1)(f) legally allows
• SBCs can only collect the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty (if any) as pre-conditions for enrolment
• Charging excess fees violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
• The decision would have prospective effect only (no refunds required for past excess collections)

Current Case Findings

• Standard Fee Structure: Most State Bar Councils were charging ₹750 for General/OBC candidates and ₹125 for SC/ST candidates
• Karnataka's Problem: The Karnataka State Bar Council was charging additional amounts of ₹6,800 and ₹25,000 as "optional" fees over and above the statutory fees
• Bar Council of India's Response: The BCI claimed all councils were complying and that Karnataka's additional fees were "optional, not mandatory"

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the concept of "optional fees" and ruled:

• "There is nothing like optional" - no State Bar Council or BCI can collect any additional fees under the guise of being "optional"
• Councils must strictly collect only the fees permitted under the Court's directions
• Karnataka State Bar Council must immediately stop collecting any "optional" amounts
• Contempt petition was closed with these clear directions

CJI HAS AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND REMOVAL OF JUDGE WHILE FORWARDING IN-HOUSE INQUIRY REPORT TO PRESIDENT & PM: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• XXX vs. The Union of India & Others

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 7, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih

Background Facts

A High Court Judge (petitioner's identity anonymized) challenged the constitutional validity of the Supreme Court's "In-House Procedure" for dealing with judicial misconduct. The case arose when burnt currency notes were discovered during a fire at the judge's official residence, leading to suspicion of misconduct. The Chief Justice of India constituted a three-member committee under the In-House Procedure, which found sufficient substance in the allegations and recommended initiation of removal proceedings.

Key Legal Issues

• Constitutional validity of the In-House Procedure, specifically paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii)
• Separation of powers - whether the CJI can recommend removal proceedings to the President and Prime Minister
• Alternative disciplinary mechanisms beyond impeachment under Articles 124, 217-218
• Natural justice in internal judicial inquiries

Supreme Court's Decision

Major Legal Principles Established

1. Validity of In-House Procedure

• The In-House Procedure has legal sanction through judicial precedent (Article 141)
• It fills the "yawning gap" between minor misconduct and serious misbehaviour warranting impeachment

2. Role of Chief Justice of India

• CJI has moral, ethical, and legal authority to initiate disciplinary action
• CJI is not a "mere post office" but can endorse committee findings
• Authority derives from being head of the judiciary and institutional responsibility

3. Nature of In-House Inquiry

• Preliminary fact-finding exercise, not a formal judicial inquiry
• Report is "preliminary, ad-hoc and not final" (Indira Jaising case)
• Does not violate natural justice principles given its preliminary nature
• Cannot directly lead to removal - only formal impeachment can

4. Judges (Protection) Act, 1985

• Section 3(2) allows Supreme Court to take action "otherwise" against judges
• Provides legal backing for the In-House Procedure
• Word "otherwise" encompasses internal disciplinary mechanisms

5. Separation of Powers

• In-House Procedure doesn't encroach on Parliament's impeachment power
• Parliament retains complete discretion whether to act on CJI's recommendation
• Procedure serves institutional integrity, not removal mechanism

Important Constitutional Articles

• Articles 124(4)&(5) - Impeachment procedure for Supreme Court judges
• Articles 217-218 - Removal of High Court judges
• Article 141 - Law declared by Supreme Court binding
• Articles 14 & 21 - Equality and due process (petitioner's claims rejected)

Key Takeaway

The judgment reinforces that judicial independence must be balanced with judicial accountability. The In-House Procedure provides a middle ground between minor reprimands and extreme measure of impeachment, ensuring institutional integrity while respecting constitutional boundaries.

NO SUSPENSION OF VEHICLE'S REGISTRATION WITHOUT PROOF OF OVERLOADING: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Kanwar Singh & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 28, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Key Facts

Multiple petitioners owned trucks/commercial vehicles used for transporting minerals. District Transport Officer (DTO), Kotputli suspended vehicle registrations on June 13, 2025. Suspension was based on allegations of continuous overloading beyond statutory limits. Authorities relied solely on reports from Mining Department without physical verification. Petitioners claimed violation of natural justice principles.

Legal Issues

• Whether vehicle registration can be suspended without physical weighing/verification?
• Whether principles of natural justice were followed?
• What is the proper procedure for establishing overloading violations?

Petitioners' Arguments

No prior notice or opportunity of hearing provided. Suspension orders passed arbitrarily without following natural justice. Under Sections 53 & 114 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, actual weighing is mandatory before punitive action. No physical measurement of vehicle weight was conducted.

Respondents' Arguments

Registered notice dated May 1, 2025 was sent to petitioners. Notices were served through registered post with postal tracking records. Vehicles were modified beyond structural capacity and used for overloading. Action taken after following due process of law.

Court's Analysis & Reasoning

Key Legal Provisions

• Section 53, Motor Vehicles Act 1988: Registration suspension requires proved contravention
• Section 114, Motor Vehicles Act 1988: Only authorized officers can conduct weighing
• Section 113: Prohibition on overloading
• Rule 115, Motor Vehicles Rules 1989: Weight restrictions

Court's Findings

• Improper Procedure: Registration suspended based on assumptions from Mining Department reports, not actual weighing
• Precedent Applied: Court relied on IRC Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. v. District Magistrate (AIR Online 2019 Ori 278)
• Mandatory Requirement Violated: Physical weighing by authorized Motor Vehicle Department officers is mandatory under Section 114

Court's Decision & Directions

Writ petitions disposed of with specific directions. Impugned suspension orders found unsustainable in law. Physical verification declared mandatory before suspension.

Key Directions

• Vehicle Inspection: Petitioners must produce vehicles before respective DTOs within one month
• Proper Verification: Transport Department to examine vehicle make, design, and conduct weighing
• Conditional Release: If no alterations found, vehicles to be released immediately
• Interim Permission: Limited permission granted for presenting vehicles to DTOs
• Future Guidelines: Suspension only after physical verification and established overloading

Legal Principles Established

Natural Justice

• Proper notice and opportunity of hearing required before adverse action
• Administrative decisions must be based on evidence, not assumptions

Procedural Compliance

• Statutory procedures under Motor Vehicles Act must be strictly followed
• Physical verification mandatory for overloading allegations
• Inter-departmental reports insufficient for punitive action

Administrative Law

• Burden of proof on authorities to establish violations
• Decisions must be based on proper investigation, not mere allegations