Divyaansh Ahuja
19 Sept 2026 6 min read
While going through any case file, legal document or at the time of filing of any application in the court either for inspection of a file, impleading a party to suit or any other kind of document submitted in the court, one of the mandatory compliances is affixation of appropriate court fee. The Court Fee Act, 1870 mandates a litigant to affix a court fee whenever he is submitting any document in a lawsuit. Court fee is affixed in a form of ticket on the respective document, and it is not optional but a legal obligation, without it the court cannot process the application or hear the matter. Even if the court fee is not paid fully the matter shall not be entertained in the court. The amount of court fee that is to be affixed is different and varies, the amount of fee differs from document to document, for example the court fee to be affixed on a vakaltnama is Rs. 25, court fee for a process form is Rs.2.
I. EVOLUTION OF COURT FEE
The concept of court fee was introduced in the colonial era’s judicial system. Earlier, in the colonial era proper judges and judicial system came after various reforms and regulations and prior to that the judicial officers who were responsible for dispensing of justice didn’t receive any remuneration for their judicial work. Originally these officers did judicial work as an additional responsibility given to them which made it a job of no reward, with time this system resulted in private trade practices by the judges and led to corruption in the system. To cure this defect, the company introduced reforms to compensate the judges for their judicial work the concept of court fee evolved. Court fee was introduced in India through provincial regulations, starting with, Madras in 1782, followed Bengal Regulation 38 in 1795 and Bombay in 1780. The imposition of court fees was justified in the Bengal Regulations, 1795, with the stated objective of curbing frivolous litigation. From its commencement, the stated objective of court fee gained little acceptance. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) stated that “Court Fees have been generally justified, on the ground of the need for increased revenue because of the increased cost of the administration of justice”
II. AD VALOREM COURT FEE
Generally, in most of the cases, a fixed sum of court fee is charged, which is laid down in the Court Fee Act,1870, but in some cases, the fee charged is a percentage of the valuation of the suit property or quantum claim. For example, there is a case related to property or the quantum claim is for Rs.1,00,000/- and the percentage prescribed for court fee is 1%, so in this case the fee will be Rs.1000/-.
This type of court fee is known as ad valorem court fee. The term "ad valorem" is derived from Latin, meaning "according to value." In the context of court fees, it refers to a fee calculated as a percentage of the monetary value of the subject matter in dispute. Ad valorem court fee is usually charged in matters related to specific monetary claims, commercial disputes etc. Unlike normal court fee, Ad Valorem court fee is relatively higher and charged on the total quantum claim. The general purpose of charging this type of court fee is to act as a deterrence against frivolous litigation suits and claims filed by the litigants, as observed by the court in many suits litigants file erroneous claims to inflate the value of suits and raise unjustifiable claims. This type of court fee acts as deterrence against such suits as it is a percentage charged on suit value; the litigant will avoid filing unreasonable claims as there will be higher fee to be paid with it. Another purpose of the fee is to generate revenue for the judicial system. It is used to fund the judiciary and public sectors and ensure that litigants contribute to the cost of the judicial process, they must be balanced to avoid making justice inaccessible to economically weaker sections of society.
III.COURT FEE AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Access to justice is one of the most important right the judicial system works to protect, but for litigants belonging to economically weaker sections such fee can become a barrier to justice. In many cases, the fee is to affixed before the verdict of the case which creates a huge burden on the shoulders of the suffering litigant Apart from being a tool of deterrence and a source of revenue, Ad Valorem Court fee also has defects which have been observed during the past two decades, in which the primary issue is heavy cost of litigants. Ad Valorem Court fee makes the litigation expensive for a litigant which may result in undervaluation of suits by the plaintiff. However, the courts also have the power to correct the valuation of the suit if the court finds that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit to pay a lower court fee, it can direct the plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the appropriate fee. In Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, the Supreme Court held that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees is primarily the plaintiff's prerogative, subject to judicial scrutiny. Also, one of the major issues is lack of uniformity in charging of court fee, the percentage of the court fee to be charged is not fixed and it differs from state to state. The Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka v. Vishwa Bharathi House Building Cooperative Society, highlighted the need for uniformity in court fee structures across states to avoid disparities in access to justice.
To sum up the whole argument of Ad Valorem Court fee, it would be rightly said that it is a great tool of deterrence against frivolous litigation claims filed and at the same time generates revenue and funds the judiciary, but like the other aspects of the systems, it also contains some flaws that can fixed by certain reforms like making the percentage to be charged uniform across the country. The Order XXXIII Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) allows indigent persons to file suits without paying court fees. However, if the suit is successful, the court may recover the court fee from the proceeds of the suit. Also, Under Section 16 of the Court Fee Act,1870, a full refund of ad valorem court fees is granted when a civil dispute is settled via court-referred Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like mediation, conciliation, or Lok Adalat, with more such reforms in the system, the cons can be addressed.
Divyaansh Ahuja
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
Sign in to join the discussion.
The natural law theory may be considered the most durable foundation of jurisprudence, allowing one to look at the validity, morality, and purpose of the positive law. As suggested by Italian jurist Giorgio Del Vecchio, natural law is a system of high principles like morality, justice, ethics, right reason, equality, and freedom as a constant striving for justice.
The law can protect property, enforce obligations, and provide remedies for legal wrongs. But it cannot force someone to love another person. A promise may begin in the heart, but only certain promises can find their way into the courtroom. Perhaps that is where the law wisely draws its line: it can regulate the legal consequences of love, but it cannot regulate love itself.
