Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for charging Rs.2500/- from candidates for oral interviews as part of enrollment

Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Alleged Misconduct by Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh Apex Court Issues Notice to Bar Council Over Charges for Oral Interviews, Directs Bar Council of India to Investigate

In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has taken cognizance of allegations against the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for allegedly charging candidates Rs. 2500 for oral interviews as part of the enrollment process. This practice, as alleged, is in direct contravention of the Supreme Court's previous directives issued in the case of "Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India."

The Bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Prasanna B. Varale, was presented with these allegations by the petitioner, Priyadarshini Saha. The petition highlighted that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had devised a method to bypass the Supreme Court's earlier judgment by imposing this fee for interviews, raising serious questions about compliance with judicial directions.

The court has issued a notice to the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, requiring them to file a detailed affidavit clarifying their position on the matter by January 7, 2026. Additionally, the Bar Council of India has been directed to investigate the issue thoroughly and coordinate with the State Bar Council to ensure adherence to the apex court's directives.

In parallel proceedings, the Supreme Court also addressed a contempt petition related to this issue. The court granted permission for the filing of the contempt petition and issued a notice returnable on January 7, 2026. The court temporarily dispensed with the presence of the alleged contemnors, requesting the learned counsel to gather further instructions and report back at the next hearing.

This case holds significant implications for the legal fraternity, particularly concerning the integrity and transparency of the enrollment process for aspiring advocates. The Supreme Court's intervention underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding its directives and ensuring accountability within professional bodies.

Bottom Line:

Allegation against the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for charging Rs.2500/- from candidates for oral interviews conducted as part of enrollment, allegedly circumventing Supreme Court's earlier directions.

Statutory provisions: Contempt of Court Act, Supreme Court Directions in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India

Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2819866