The Delhi High Court recently ruled that foreign law degree holders must clear the Bar Council of India's (BCI) qualifying exam for foreign degree-holding nationals to be eligible to practice law in India, regardless of whether they have completed a bridge course at an Indian law college.
Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized that the Bar Council of India's (BCI) qualifying exam is crucial for evaluating the preparedness of foreign law degree holders to meet the professional standards required for legal practice in India.
The observation was made while rejecting a plea to extend an exemption from the qualifying exam to a law graduate who had completed a two-year bridge course at the National Law University, Delhi (NLUD) after earning a law degree from the University of Buckingham.
"The successful completion of the bridge course undoubtedly grants the Petitioner equivalency in educational terms; however, it does not dispense with the statutory requirement to appear for the Qualifying Examination,” the Court stated in its November 28 ruling.
A graduate with a foreign law degree challenged the Bar Council of India's (BCI) mandate to clear the 'Qualifying Examination for Indian Nationals Holding Foreign Law Degrees' as a prerequisite for practicing law in India.
She argued that having passed the exams at the University of Buckingham and completed a BCI-recognized bridge course at NLU Delhi, she should be exempt from taking another exam.
However, the Court noted that the graduate was already aware of the requirement to clear the BCI qualifying examination as a precondition for enrolment and practice in India. In support of its decision, the Court cited an October 2021 communication issued by the BCI, which outlined this requirement when she sought permission to undertake the bridge course.
“By voluntarily acting upon the communication and undertaking the bridge course, the Petitioner has implicitly acknowledged and accepted the regulatory framework governing her enrolment,” the Court stated.
The Court distinguished its decision from a recent Karnataka High Court judgment, where a similarly placed graduate was exempted from appearing for the qualifying examination.
Justice Narula highlighted that the Karnataka High Court's ruling was based on notifications issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) in 2023, whereas the present case was governed by updated notifications issued by the BCI in 2024.
The Court concluded that the Karnataka High Court's observations could not be applied to the current matter, as they arose from "an entirely distinct regulatory framework."
Advocates Manish Kaushik, Mishal Johari, Ajit Singh Joher, Anubhav Gupta, Aryan Pandey, Chirag Sharma, Mainak Sarkar and Aparna Kushwah appeared for the petitioner, Mehak Oberoi.
Advocates Preetpal Singh and Yash Saini appeared for the Bar Council of India.
Advocates T Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Yamini Singh, Abhijit Chakravarty, Arun Hussain, Bhanu Gulati, and Aabhas Sukhramani appeared for another respondent.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy