Only individuals who meet the legal education and Bar Council requirements may practice law; unauthorized practice undermines the legal profession and necessitates investigation by the appropriate Bar Council.

ORDER :

Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.

1. Heard learned counsel Sri.Joshi Shriprasad Jayateerth for the petitioner, learned AGA Sri.Sharad Magadum for respondent Nos.1, 6 to 9, learned counsel Sri.Y.K.Divate for respondent No.2, learned counsel Smt.Archana Magadum for respondent No.3, learned counsel Sri.Rajashekhar Burji for respondent No.4, learned counsel Sri.Rajashekhar Gunjalli for respondent No.5 and the learned counsel Sri.V.M.Sheelvant for respondent No.11.

2. This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who is a practising advocate, registered in the Karnataka State Bar Council. Petitioner is the advocate for the minor victim in Spl.Case No.602/2023.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.11 has contacted the father of the victim, urging him to turn hostile in the Court at Belagavi. The father of the victim has registered a complaint to that effect against the respondent No.11. The petitioner has advised respondent No.11 not to meddle with the process of trial in the pending criminal proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.11 is not even a qualified lawyer, she has not cleared her 6^th semester examinations and she is not admitted to the respondent No.10- B. V. Bellad Law College, Belagavi. Therefore, since she has not completed her law course, she would be ineligible to practice in the Courts in Karnataka.

4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.11 though has not signed the vakalat in the Court, but is regularly appearing and conducting the case without officially signing any documents, thereby is conducting herself as an advocate. Learned counsel also contends that respondent No.11 has not cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) as well, which makes it mandatory for any person practicing as an advocate to appear for a litigant in the Courts. Learned counsel further contends that these facts have been brought to the notice of respondent No.2 i.e., the Bar Association, Belagavi and also respondent Nos.3 and 4, but no action is taken by these respondents. Hence the present petition is filed.

5. There are several other contentions raised and allegations made against respondent No.11 by the petitioner stating that the respondent No.11 has been appearing before several Courts in Belagavi and also several other statutory authorities, police stations to register FIR in the guise of being an advocate. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the guise of being an advocate, respondent No.11 has been threatening the petitioner to register a complaint against the petitioner under several provisions of law including the SC/ST Act and others, thereby falsely portraying herself to be an advocate and misusing the noble profession and is causing hindrance not only to the petitioner and his clients, but to the advocates’ fraternity as a whole. The learned counsel further contends that the inaction of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 is leading to this situation whereby the persons who are not qualified as advocates are practicing in several places in the State of Karnataka thereby not only causing problems and inconvenience to the Courts, litigants but to the advocates who are genuinely practicing and earning their livelihood, apart from the fact that this profession is a noble profession. Under the circumstances, he has filed the present petition to initiate action against respondent No.11 who is not an eligible person to practice in the State of Karnataka as an advocate from the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The representation to that effect has been filed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the responde