Seeking the government’s views in this regard by April 28, the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said, “At the end of the day, it is a matter of policy and the court will not interfere unless it finds complete arbitrariness or the possibility of manifest injustice resulting in the exclusion of a class of citizens or court-fees being fixed at such levels that shock the conscience of the court.”

Even as it said it was not expressing any conclusive view at this stage, the bench said the State may reconsider the quantum of increase as it appeared to be significant.

The court also recorded the government’s submission that a committee that had had dealt with the proposed fee structure across a cross-section of matters had perceived the quantum of increase to be appropriate. The State also submitted that in several cases, the proposed increase was reduced and the committee has balanced the matter in such a way that its recommendations were revenue neutral.

The petitioner had submitted that as the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution was to enforce fundamental rights that are guaranteed, the costs for availing such remedy should not be such as would exclude a class of persons from availing the remedy.

He had also submitted that when paltry amounts were charged for applying under Article 227 of the Constitution and for seeking bail or anticipatory bail or moving criminal appeals, the exorbitant increase in court fees for WP and WA appeared incongruous.