How foreign law degree holders who did bridge course can enrol? Karnataka High Court clarifies
Category: Civil Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
INTRODUCTION
Karnataka High Court has modified the clarity on registration of Indian nationals with foreign law degrees holding that those who have completed the BCIapproved Bridge Course are needed to clear only the All India Bar Examination to become eligible for practicing in India. It is said to be a relief for many foreign graduates as the move will exempt them from conducting more qualifying examinations.
BACKGROUND
The case referred was that of Karan Dhananjaya, who is an LLB law graduate from Birmingham City University, UK. He passed out with his three-year LLB degree in 2020. When he entered India, he decided to pursue the Bridge Course as it is only for Indian nationals holding foreign law degrees which are not in accordance with the Indian legal education structure. The courses fall under either 12+3+3 years or 12+5 years of integrated law degree.
Completing the Bridge Course successfully Dhananjaya appeared for and cleared AIBE but failed to clear the additional qualifying examination conducted by the BCI for foreign graduates. He moved Karnataka High Court challenging that since the bridge course is introduced to fill this gap in educational standards, it must exempt him from having to go through any additional qualifying examinations apart from AIBE.
KEY ASPECTS
1. Acceptance of the BCI notification:
Notably, the Court upheld the notification by BCI dated March 21, 2023, which notified that foreign law degree holders who will successfully complete the Bridge Course will be eligible to enroll as advocates in India upon qualifying for AIBE.
2. Directive to the KSBC:
Karnataka State Bar Council ordered to enroll Dhananjaya as litigant advocate with consideration of completion of Bridge Course and AIBE results without other examinations.
3. The purpose of Bridge Course:
The court held that the course was introduced by the BCI to iron out academic differences between law degrees offered abroad and in India, and is qualitative enough to be considered adequate for admission.
4. Lack of Simplification:
The judgment held that the requirement to undertake further qualifying examinations beyond the AIBE diminishes the very purpose of the Bridge Course as "unnecessary hurdles" in front of foreign law graduates.
5. Equitable Treatment of Graduates:
The parity at play here is between an Indian citizen with a degree in law outside of India and an Indian national completing a law degree from an Indian law school. The latter can join only as an advocate after clearing the AIBE.
6. Relief to the Petitioner:
Dhananjaya was relieved immediately as the Court directed him to be enrolled as an advocate and sent a message to similarly placed foreign law graduates.
CONCLUSION
This decision of the Karnataka High Court marks a significant stride in simplifying enrollment for foreign law graduates of Indian nationality. The judgment, by recognizing that the Bridge Course is adequate along with the AIBE, ensures fairness and removes all unnecessary burdens on candidates. Many foreign law graduates in the same position can benefit from this ruling so that a smooth pathway to practicing law in India will be bestowed on them.
WRITTEN BY :ADV ANIK
