Court fee

What is a ‘Court Fee’?

Court fee means such a fee as is chargeable and collected by a court along with a plaint, complaint or appeal and with a petition for review or revision as specified in this Act. The Court Fee, 1870 states that all kind of court fees levied under the Act shall be paid through stamps. This is the general mode of payment of court fees throughout the country. Moreover, there are several other state legislations which govern the court fees of their respective state. For example, the Karnataka Court Fee Act, Jharkhand Court Fee Act and the Supreme Court Rules which specifically governs the court fee for the Supreme Court.

In contrast, in the United States of America, the court fee is called the filing fee. It is a charge by a state or federal government agency for processing documents and requests. Filing fees help cover the cost of reviewing the documents, storing them, and discourage unnecessary paper filings.

Official Definition of ‘Court Fee’

The term Court Fee has not been defined under The Court Fee Act, 1870 or any other state legislation. However, Section 6 of the Court Fee Act prescribes documents specified as chargeable with court fees in Schedules I and II to the Act and prohibits their filing, exhibition or recording in a court of justice unless fees of the indicated amount have been paid. The schedules have been divided into Schedule I dealing with ad valorem court fees and Schedule II dealing with fixed court fees.

Computation of 'Court Fees' –

Section 7 of the Act contemplates three types of valuation of the subject matter of a suit.

1. By valuing it according to its market value.
2. By ascribing to the subject matter an artificial value based simply on a certain fixed rule of calculation.
3. By requiring the plaintiff himself to value the relief he seeks.

This section only applies where the ad valorem fee is payable.

Here is the detailed breakdown of the rule of computation of court fees in these kinds of suits –

1. Suits for money – According to the amount claimed.
2. Suits of maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically – Ten times the amount claimed to be payable in a year.
3. Suits for movable property where the subject matter has a market value – According to the market value at the date of presenting the plaint.
4. Suits for the possession of land, buildings or gardens – According to market value or (net profit x 15 times), whichever is higher.
5. Suits for Pre-emption – If instituted under Muslim Personal Law, then according to the market value of the land.
6. Suits for partition – According to the market value of the share in respect of which the suit has been instituted.
7. Suits for the interest of an assignee of land revenue – Fifteen times of net profit.
8. Suits to set aside an attachment of land – According to the amount for which the land was attached.
9. Suits to redeem mortgaged property and suit for foreclosing – According to the principal money
10. Suits for injunction or for a right to some benefit arising out of the land – In such suits, the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.

'Court Fee' as defined in official government report(s)

The 14th, 128th, 189th and 220th Law Commission Report has suo moto taken up to study and suggest that there should be a fixed maximum Court Fees. It also restated the definition of the court fee as: A court fee is levied for meeting administrative expenses and not to limit access to justice. It has also been stated that court fee is not a state revenue. Charging fees more than the cost incurred is not a sound practice by the state.

Law Commission of India, 14th  Report (1958): The Commission observed that the argument that it is necessary to impose high court-fees to prevent frivolous litigation has no substance; these increases have been generally justified on the ground of the need of increased revenue by reason of the increased cost of the administration of justice.

Law Commission of India, 128th Report (1988): The Commission affirmed the views expressed in its 14th Report.

Law Commission of India, 189th Report (2004): The Commission did not find any reason to take a different view than the one expressed by the Commission in its 14th and 128th Reports that the underlying real reason for the enhancement of court fees appears to be the collection of more revenue by the States which is not sound public policy. On the other hand, higher court fees will discourage the honest and genuine poor litigant. The Commission emphasized that any enhancement of court fees should not adversely affect the right of access to justice. Further, the amount collected by way of court fees should not be more than the expenditure incurred in the administration of civil justice. Subject to these limitations, the amount of fixed court fee prescribed under Schedule 2 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 may be enhanced in proportion to the extent of devaluation of the rupee.

Law Commission of India 128th Report (2009): This commission observed that there should be some measure of uniformity in the scales of court fees. It further recommended that there is no justification for any differential treatment of different suitors. The Government should, therefore, seriously consider the feasibility of a fixed maximum chargeable court fee.

The parliamentary standing committee suggested an amendment of Supreme Court Rules framed under Article 145, for levying ad valorem court- fees on corporate litigants.

'Court Fee' as defined in case law(s)

Zenith Lamps and Electricals Ltd. Vs The Registrar, High Court, Madras: In this case, the court held that the fees collected are for covering the cost of the court procedure and strictly not for the states to make revenue. In their words, “there must be a broad correlation with the fees collected and the cost of administration of civil justice.” Further held that for a fee there has to be a correlation between the income and the expenditure, that the levy should be reasonable and that any levy on a suitor in the civil court whereby revenues are realized generally and unrelated to his cause will to that extent, be an impost in the nature of a tax.

“In this case, we are concerned with the administration of civil justice in a State. The fees must have a relation to the administration of civil justice…. It is free to levy a small fee in some cases, and a large fee in others, subject of course to the provisions of Article 14. But one thing the Legislature is not competent to do, and that is to make litigants contribute to the increase of general public revenue…. There must be a broad correlationship with the fees collected and the cost of the administration of civil justice…. We agree with the Madras High Court in the present case that the fees taken in Courts are not a category by themselves and must contain the essential elements of the fees as laid down by this Court.”

Government of Madras v. P. R. Sriramulu: In this case, the court observed that there should also be some measures of uniformity in the scales of court fees throughout the country as there appears to be a vast difference in the scales of court fees in various States of the country. The feasibility of a fixed maximum chargeable fee also deserves serious consideration.

“In any case, it is also not the requirement of law that the collection raised through the levy should exactly tally or correspond to the expenditure in the administration of civil justice.  It has already been ruled by this Court that the correlation between the amount raised through the fee and the expenses incurred in providing the services should not be examined with exactitude with a view to ascertain any accurate and arithmetical equivalence but the test would be satisfied if a broad and general correlation is found to exist. …Once it is established that the primary and essential purpose is the rendering of specific services to a specified class, it becomes immaterial that the State has earned certain benefits out of it indirectly. … Before parting with these matters, we may point out that it could not be disputed that the administration of justice is a service which the State is under an obligation to render to its subject. There can be no two opinions that the amount raised from the suitors by way of fee should not normally exceed the cost of the administration of justice because,  possibly there could be no justification with the  State to enrich itself from high court fees or to secure revenue for general administration.  The total receipts from the court fees should be such as by and large can cover the cost of administration of justice.  There should also be some measure of uniformity in the scales of court fees throughout the country as there appears to be a vast difference in the scales of court fees in various States of the country. The feasibility of a fixed maximum chargeable fee also deserves serious consideration.”

P. M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v.  State of Karnataka: In this case, the court held that there should be a broad and general correlation between the fee and expenses, not accurate or arithmetical equivalence.

Delhi Court Bar Association & anr. v Government of NCT of Delhi: The court held that the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi lacked the power to amend central statutes, thereby declaring the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act of 2012, through which the Delhi government had sought to increase court fees payable in Delhi, as void. The court reaffirmed that only the Parliament is empowered to amend or repeal central statutes by virtue of Article 246(4), and the procedure prescribed under the Constitution for obtaining presidential assent must be strictly followed. In addition, the court observed that the Amendment Act adversely impacts fundamental rights and results in violation of Articles 38 and 39A of the Constitution of India on various counts, such as reducing women's access to court.

There are two kinds of court fees under the Court Fees Act –

Ad Valorem Court fees (Schedule 1) – it means according to the valuation. Ad valorem duties are always estimated at a certain per cent, on the valuation of the property as opposed to fixed or specific duties.

1. Keeping in view the financial constraints, the system of levy in court fees on an ad valorem basis on money suits and other items such as applications for grants of probate/letter of administration and issue of succession certificates may continue for the present.
2. The rate structure of ad valorem fees on money suits in different States may be reviewed and revised so that the rate tapers from 10 per cent. in the lowest slab to 1 per cent. of the highest slab. It may be left to the State Governments to determine the slabs for different tapering rates. This, however, does not imply that where the rate is lower, it should be raised to 10 per cent. The 10 per cent ad valorem rate at the lowest slab is the maximum limit.
3. Though there is no legal requirement to have a ceiling on court fees, it is desirable to have a ceiling in States where there is no such ceiling. A ceiling of Rs. 30,000 on court fees would be appropriate.
4. Litigants having annual income up to Rs. 6,000 may be exempted from payment of court fees. If a State Government is in a position to exempt litigants having income higher than Rs. 6,000, it may do so, keeping in view the overall impact such an exemption may have. As regards proof of income, an affidavit by the plaintiff may be accepted.
5. If a State Government finds it feasible to exempt: Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe litigants who have an income higher than Rs. 6,000 a year, or Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes as a class, from payment of court fee, it may do so.
6. The interests of those living in backward States will be taken care of by the general scheme of exemption recommended by the Committee on the basis of income limit.

Fixed or specific court fees (Schedule 2).

Process Fee: A process fee is chargeable by the court to serve the other party involved in the case for example for serving summons, notices, and so on. Whenever anything has to be served to another party through court, a process fee is filed.  No process shall be issued until the proper fee for its service has been paid; however, as soon as the process fee is paid by a party, a receipt in the prescribed form shall be granted by the Ahlmad and the court fee label indicating the fee shall then be attached to the diary of process fees and immediately punched.

1. Firstly, you require a copy of the documents to be served to the other party. The number of copies must be equal to the number of addresses where the document needs to be served.
2. Secondly, get a process fee form and fill in the particulars required to be filled. Particulars include the name of the parties, case number, last date of hearing and next date of hearing, filing date, filed by whom, number of copies and lastly the amount of process fees. Further, you are required to attach a court fee label of Rupees 2 in the process fee form.
3. Subsequent to this you need to get the pf form signed by the Alhamad. Every judge is assigned an alhamad, after signing the pf form the alhamad will provide you with the receiving of the pf. One needs to take the receiving and deposit the copies of the document and process fee form to the alhamad.

Functional variations across regions/states/High Courts

Jharkhand: After the formation of Jharkhand, no increase has been made on the Court Fees chargeable on different cases filed in the Civil Courts. It has remained considerably the same.

Rajasthan: Sections 7 and 8 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Valuation Act provide the following: when in any case the fee chargeable under the Act is less than 25/- rupees such fee shall be denoted by adhesive court fee stamps.  When in any case the fee so chargeable amounts to or exceeds 25/- rupees, such fee shall be denoted by impressed court fee stamps, adhesive court fee stamps being employed to make up fractions to less than 25/- rupees.

Arunachal Pradesh: The state of Arunachal Pradesh is governed by the Court Fee Act, 1870 for all its fees payable to the High Court and Subordinate Courts of Arunachal Pradesh, as per the Assam Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1972. However, recently the state’s Legislative Assembly on September 4, 2023, approved the Arunachal Pradesh Court Fees Bill, 2023 which would govern the court fee in the state.

Maharashtra: Section 3 of the Maharashtra Court Fees determines the basis on which the court fee would be calculated.

Jammu and Kashmir:  The state of Jammu and Kashmir gives the Central Record Keeping Agency the responsibility to remit the consolidated amount of Court Fees collected from its offices/branches and by its Authorized Collection Centres to the head of account of court fees or any other notified head of account of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in the manner prescribed.

Himachal Pradesh: The Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1968 governs the court fee structure in the state. It very comprehensively lays down the procedure for calculating the court fee for various cases and the court.

Andhra Pradesh: The Court Fees Act, 1870 is repealed in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh, under Section 79(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The state government is conferred with the power to grant reduction or remission of the Court Fee, under Section 68 of the Act.

Gujarat: The court fees in Gujarat’s lower courts and the high court in civil and criminal cases have been abolished completely through The Gujarat Court Fee Amendment Bill 2016.

International Experience

Court fees – A comparative description of court fee systems in some member states of the European Union

The article discusses the court fee systems in various EU member states, focusing on the height of court fees and how they are imposed and collected.

Court Fee Systems: The document compares court fee systems across EU member states (18 states), focusing on civil and administrative procedures, excluding criminal cases. It examines the fees’ relation to the value of money in different countries, acknowledging the risk of comparing absolute figures without considering purchasing power parity.

‘Legal Shopping Basket’ Technique: A unique approach is used to compare court fees by creating a ‘legal shopping basket’ of common legal procedures, such as personal injury claims, divorce, labour disputes, and administrative complaints about building licenses. This method aims to reflect the average citizen’s perspective on court fees.

Court Fee Table: A table (Table s1) lists court fees for selected procedures in euros as of 2005. It shows significant variations, with some countries like Estonia, the Netherlands, and Germany charging higher rates, while others like Spain, France, and Luxembourg charge no court fees. Further, the report provides a detailed study of the court fee systems in Denmark, Germany, England & Wales, and Scotland, describing their general approach to civil and administrative procedures and how court fees relate to the overall costs for litigants and the judicial system.  

Access to Justice: The study finds that none of the court fee rates jeopardize the right to access to justice, with all systems providing exemptions or reductions for those with limited means.

Comparison with Dutch System: The document compares the court fee systems with the Dutch system, identifying features such as the basis of the system, the use of court fees as a judicial policy instrument, and the treatment of counterclaims and appeals.

Features of Court Fee Systems: A second table (Table s2) outlines the features of court fee systems in the studied countries, showing how they differ in aspects like cost recovery, judicial policy, and exemptions for low-income individuals.

Appearance of 'Court Fee' in Database

The eCommittee newsletter publishes the status of implementation of e-payments across states and High Courts.

Status of Implementation of e-Payments as on 31.12.2023

Status of Implementation of e-Payments as on 31.12.2023

Research that engages with 'Court Fee'

Court fees can criminalize poverty, major study finds By Hassan Kanu

The article discusses the predatory nature of municipal fines and fees, highlighting cases where police departments function as collection agencies, such as in Ferguson, Missouri, and Brookside, Alabama. It presents findings from a new study showing that court fees often result in the criminalization of poverty, trapping low-income individuals in a cycle of court involvement and state punishment. It also highlights a study conducted by researchers including Devah Pager, Rebecca Goldstein, and Bruce Western, the study involved paying off court fees for some convicted individuals in Oklahoma County. It revealed that relieving debt did not increase criminal behaviour but reduced further court actions against the individuals. The article supports the argument that court fees are inefficient and counter-productive, suggesting that they should be abolished, as they provide little benefit to governments and disproportionately affect the poor and people of colour. It gives an example of California that they have already taken steps to end the collection of administrative fees, and other states are considering similar reforms.