Now Reading: Supreme Court to examine validity of uncapped ad valorem court fee in Kerala
-
01
Supreme Court to examine validity of uncapped ad valorem court fee in Kerala
Supreme Court to examine validity of uncapped ad valorem court fee in Kerala
The Supreme Court on Friday, 16 October 2026, issued notice on a petition by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association challenging the 2025 hike in court fees in Kerala and the imposition of uncapped ad valorem court fees. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi limited notice to examining whether such uncapped fees amount to a tax.
Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, for the association, argued that ad valorem fees without an upper limit become a tax rather than a legitimate fee, citing a Delhi High Court ruling. Justice Bagchi observed during the hearing that judicial time spent on commercial disputes 'must come at a price'. Chief Justice Kant noted the petitioners had not placed a comparative chart with other States and remarked on the State's exemption from paying court fees: 'The right hand will be paying the left hand.'
The amendments introduced through the Kerala Finance Act, 2025, raised court fees by 400% to 9,900% in some categories. The Kerala High Court dismissed the association's plea in October 2025. The Supreme Court listed the matter for further hearing on 2 November.
Indian Opinion Analysis
Both livelaw.in and barandbench.com produced uniform straight reporting of the Supreme Court issuing notice on the limited question of whether uncapped ad valorem court fees under the Kerala Finance Act, 2025, amount to a tax. Both placed the same observation by Justice Bagchi, that judicial time in commercial disputes 'must come at a price', prominently. Both reported that Chief Justice Surya Kant noted the petitioners had not placed a comparative chart with other States and that the State government's own exemption from court fees was criticised as 'the right hand paying the left hand'. The only difference was that livelaw.in led with the rhetorical question form of the core legal issue, while barandbench.com opened with the court's agreement to examine the point. Neither source omitted any significant element or favoured any side. The uniformity indicates the coverage was driven by the court's own clear framing of the limited notice. The matter is next listed on 2 November.
Coverage: 2 sources, 2 neutral
Sources (2): livelaw.in (neutral report), barandbench.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
