Case Background: Advocate Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India (2025)

The case of Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India (2025) represents a pivotal Public Interest Litigation (PIL) currently before the Supreme Court of India. At its core, this legal challenge scrutinizes the ₹3,500 fee imposed for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), a mandatory qualification for law graduates seeking to practice law in India. The petitioner, Advocate Sanyam Gandhi, asserts that this fee is excessive and arbitrary, potentially creating an undue barrier to entry into the legal profession. 

State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal AIR 1992: False Cases Ruin Innocent Lives, Landmark Judgment by Supreme Court

Can Screenshots Be Used as Evidence in Court Legal Validity with Case Law Explained

Right to Privacy of Adolescents: Supreme Court takes suo motu cognizance of Calcutta High Court’s controversial POCSO acquittal case 2025

Case Title: Sanyam Gandhi vs Union of India (2025) – Legal Challenge to AIBE Fee Structure

Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. ___ of 2025 (exact number not publicly cited)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Filed Under: Article 32 of the Constitution of India (writ jurisdiction)

Legal Issue Involved

Whether the fee of ₹3,500 for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), levied by the Bar Council of India (BCI), violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

Key Legal Questions

1. Does the AIBE fee constitute an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to practice the legal profession under Article 19(1)(g)?
2. Is the fee structure arbitrary and violative of the right to equality under Article 14?
3. Does the Advocates Act, 1961 permit such imposition of examination fees?

Petitioner’s Contention: ₹3,500 All India Bar Examination (AIBE) fee

Advocate Sanyam Gandhi, appearing in person before the Supreme Court, has filed a writ petition challenging the ₹3,500 fee levied for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). He contends that the fee is arbitrary, excessive, and violative of constitutional and statutory provisions.

The petitioner argues that this fee structure breaches Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which governs the conditions for entry into the legal profession. Furthermore, it allegedly infringes on Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession) of the Constitution. Gandhi submits that since the AIBE is a mandatory statutory requirement to practice law, the fee must adhere to constitutional standards of fairness and accessibility.

To strengthen his claim, the petitioner relies on the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, where the Court imposed a ceiling on enrolment fees: ₹750 for General candidates and ₹125 for SC/ST candidates under the same statutory provision. Gandhi asserts that, like enrolment fees, the AIBE fee should be subject to similar judicial scrutiny, as its current quantum places an undue financial burden on aspiring advocates and undermines equal access to the legal profession.

Comparison of AIBE Fee vs. Enrolment Fee Caps (as per Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India)

Respondent’s Position: Union of India & BCI

Though no formal reply was recorded due to early disposal, the Union of India and BCI defended the fee on grounds of:

• Administrative necessity and financial sustainability of the BCI.
• The AIBE is a regulatory mechanism, not merely a test but a statutory requirement for licensing advocates under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court’s Initial Observations (February 2025): Balancing Financial Viability

Advocate Sanyam Gandhi had previously filed a similar petition (W.P.(C) No. 28/2025), which was disposed of by the same bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, on February 24, 2025. During this initial hearing, the Court expressed reluctance to entertain the plea, emphasizing the necessity for bar councils to remain financially viable to cover operational costs and staff salaries. Justice Pardiwala notably remarked, “You want the bar councils to survive or not? We have already chopped off the upper and lower limbs. They also have staff to pay. Once you pay ₹3,500, you will start earning ₹3,50,000 also”. At that time, the Bench distinguished AIBE fees from the enrolment fees considered in the Gaurav Kumar case and advised the petitioner to first approach the BCI directly with the grievance, granting liberty to return to the Court if the response was unsatisfactory or absent. 

• Doctrine of Proportionality: Applied implicitly to assess whether the fee is a proportional restriction on the right to practice.
• Principle of Self-Regulation in Professions: Recognized the BCI’s role in maintaining professional standards.
• Judicial Restraint: Followed where statutory remedies are not exhausted.

Current Status (May 2025): Notice Issued to Bar Council of India (BCI)

Following the Supreme Court’s directive, Sanyam Gandhi reportedly filed an appropriate representation with the BCI on February 26, 2025. However, the petitioner received no response from the BCI. Taking note of this lack of response, the Supreme Court, in a fresh development on May 19, 2025 (W.P.(C) No. 288/2025), formally issued notice to the Bar Council of India, seeking its response on the matter. The BCI is now anticipated to explain the rationale behind the current ₹3,500 fee, demonstrate its compliance with legal requirements, and clarify whether the fee includes additional services or infrastructural support that justifies the amount. 

Key Details of Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India (2025)

Conclusion: Balance Between Regulation and Access

This case reflects a judicial balancing act between:

• Access to the profession (Article 19(1)(g)), and
• Financial and administrative competence of statutory bodies like the BCI.