About the Author
This Article is written by Pranav C Satheesh. He is a final year BBA LLB (Hons,) student at Government Law College, Kozhikode. He is also an editor trainee at ljrfvoice.com.
Introduction
The imposition of court fees has long been a subject of legal, economic, and ethical debate in India and across the globe. While governments often justify court fees as necessary for maintaining the judicial infrastructure and deterring frivolous litigation, critics argue that such fees act as a barrier to access to justice, especially for economically disadvantaged citizens. The recent developments in Kerala have reignited this discourse, with legal professionals and civil society raising concerns over a steep hike in court fees that allegedly threatens to undermine constitutional guarantees and principles of natural justice.
What is a Court Fee?
Court fees are monetary charges levied on litigants for the services rendered by courts in civil, criminal, and other legal proceedings. The rationale behind court fees lies in partially offsetting the costs incurred by the State in administering justice. Ideally, these fees are designed to create a balance between discouraging frivolous claims and ensuring fair and equitable access to judicial services.
Historical Development of Court Fees in India
The roots of court fees can be traced back to the 13th century in England with the Statute of Gloucester, which introduced a tariff system for court usage. In colonial India, the imposition of court fees was justified in the Bengal Regulations of 1795 with the purported objective of discouraging frivolous litigation. However, Lord Macaulay famously criticized this justification as “absurd,” noting that such fees would also deter genuine litigants unable to afford them.
Post-independence, the 14th Law Commission Report (1958) highlighted the increasing reliance on court fees as a source of revenue rather than a judicial necessity. The 128th Report (1988) of the Law Commission went further, deeming court fees as incompatible with a society governed by the rule of law and recommending their abolition. Despite such critiques, the practice continues with varying intensity across Indian states.
Why Impose Court Fees? A Social and Economic Perspective
In simple terms, court fees are imposed to balance two important needs: ensuring the justice system works efficiently and making sure it is not misused. From a social angle, court fees are seen as a way to reduce unnecessary and frivolous cases. If there were no cost to filing cases, some people might misuse the court system for personal vendettas or to delay justice. By charging a fee, the system tries to ensure that only serious claims are brought forward.
From an economic perspective, court fees help manage the gap between private and societal costs. Private costs are what an individual litigant pays directly like lawyer fees, court fees, and time lost. Societal costs, on the other hand, are the expenses borne by the public such as judge salaries, infrastructure, and delays to other cases caused by a crowded docket. Scholars like Alejandro Esteller-Moré argue that when private costs are too low, individuals might overuse the courts, increasing the burden on society. Court fees help strike a balance by making litigants consider whether their case justifies the cost, thereby aligning their personal actions with the broader public interest.
In a welfare state with limited resources, user charges like court fees are also viewed as a way to redistribute costs. Those who can afford more (especially in high-stakes or high-value litigation) are expected to contribute more towards the maintenance of the judicial system.
However, this approach must be tempered with sensitivity toward the economically weaker sections. Otherwise, the imposition of court fees can conflict with constitutional guarantees like Article 14 (equality before law), Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty, including access to justice), and Article 39A (equal justice and free legal aid).
The Dark Side of Court Fees: A Barrier to Justice
Despite the economic rationale, court fees have a darker side. They are often incompatible with the constitutional guarantee under Article 14 and Article 21. The Supreme Court in P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 696, while upholding the constitutionality of ad valorem court fees, recognized the emotional and social implications of pricing justice. Venkatachaliah J quoted from A.P. Herbert’s fictional case, stating:
“If the Crown must charge for justice, at least the fee should be like the fee for postage: that is to say, it should be the same, however long the journey may be.”
The judgment emphasized that justice should not be commodified and that access to courts should not be determined by one’s financial standing. It cautioned against allowing court fees to become a tool for revenue generation at the cost of fundamental rights.
In Report No. 189, the Law Commission echoed this sentiment, observing that while court fees can be collected for civil justice, such collection should not hinder access. The power to raise funds through court fees is not an obligation; rather, the state can justifiably use public revenues to fund the judiciary. The Law Commission in Report No. 253 (2015) recommended aligning court fees with the actual time and resources a case consumes, suggesting a proportional system rather than a flat or purely ad valorem model. Jurisdictions like Singapore already adopt such time-based models to avoid unnecessary delays and deter abuse of process.
The imposition of high court fees may also lead to a violation of Article 39A, which mandates equal access to justice for all. If the court becomes unaffordable, it defeats the constitutional purpose of a fair legal system.
The Kerala Crisis: A Microcosm of a Larger Problem
Kerala has recently become the focal point of this nationwide debate. In the 2025–2026 State Budget, Finance Minister KN Balagopal proposed a court fee hike ranging from 400 to 9,900 percent. This unprecedented increase was introduced without adequate consultation or justification, sparking widespread protests across the State. Members of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) staged a pen-down protest, bringing court proceedings to a standstill.
The KHCAA filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the fee hike. The Kerala High Court, under Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu, directed the State to submit a counter affidavit explaining the rationale behind the decision. The expert committee chaired by Justice V.K. Mohanan had recommended only a five percent increase across the board, a proposal that was overlooked.
Kerala already ranks among the states with the highest court fees in the country. The recent hike, lawyers argue, would exacerbate existing barriers to justice and disproportionately affect economically weaker sections. The government’s justification citing a financial crisis and lack of central funds has not mollified critics, who argue that justice cannot be a casualty of fiscal mismanagement.
Court Fees and Constitutional Rights
The insistence on high court fees runs counter to several constitutional ideals. Besides Articles 14 and 21, it may also infringe on Article 39A, a Directive Principle that mandates the state to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. By making access to courts contingent upon financial capability, the state effectively contravenes this constitutional duty.
Toward an Equitable Court Fee Regime
An equitable approach to court fees should recognize the difference between litigants with varying financial capabilities. Vulnerable litigants, such as those below the poverty line, women, prisoners, and individuals with serious illnesses should be exempted or significantly relieved from paying fees. States like Odisha already provide such exemptions, and Kerala’s Law Reform Commission has proposed similar measures. However, these exemptions need broader implementation and monitoring.
There is also scope for systemic reform. Technological innovations, such as online court fee payments and AI-driven assessments of fee structures, could increase efficiency and transparency. States like Gujarat have taken proactive steps like abolishing process fees to reduce pendency due to non-payment issues.
Conclusion
The debate over court fees is ultimately a debate about the values that underpin our legal system. While it is understandable that the state must raise resources to sustain the judiciary, this should not come at the cost of constitutional rights and equitable access. As Venkatachaliah J aptly noted, justice is a public good that must be within reach of all those blessed with affluence and those depressed with poverty.
As the author, I recognize the merit in imposing court fees as a fiscal tool and a regulatory mechanism. However, I believe that access to justice must be paramount. Rather than adopting a blanket fee hike, states should pursue a rational, equitable, and transparent court fee structure one that supports judicial efficiency without excluding the very people it seeks to serve. Let us remember in a truly just society, those who have less in life must have more in law.
