IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Bar Council of India's requirement for foreign law degree holders to pass a Qualifying Examination, emphasizing the necessity of competency assessment for legal practice in India.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

CM APPL. 69431/2024 (Exemption)

1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Applicant shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 16445/2024 & CM APPL. 69430/2024 (for interim relief)

4. The Petitioner, an Indian citizen, completed her law degree from the University of Buckingham in the United Kingdom, a university recognized by the Bar Council of India.[ “BCI”] Thereafter, she pursued and successfully completed a two-year bridge course from the National Law University, Delhi, [“NLU Delhi”] a recognized institution in India. She has filed the present petition challenging the notification dated 11th November 2024 issued by BCI, which schedules the ‘21st Qualifying Examination for Indian Nationals Holding Foreign Law Degrees’. The Petitioner argues that, despite having cleared two examinations conducted by two recognised universities, she is being compelled to appear for an additional Qualifying Examination. She contends that this requirement is discriminatory, compared to similarly placed citizens who have completed their L.L.B. degrees in India.

Factual Background

5. The facts leading to the initiation of the present proceedings is as follows:

5.1 The Petitioner completed her 12th Grade under the Central Board of Secondary Education from Modern School, Vasant Vihar, Delhi in 2016.

5.2 She then pursued and obtained her L.L.B. degree in 2020 from the University of Buckingham, receiving her degree certificate on 20th March 2020.

5.3 Upon returning to India, she sought and received permission from the BCI to undergo a two-year bridge course to achieve equivalence with an Indian L.L.B. degree. In accordance with this permission, she enrolled at NLU Delhi and completed the bridge course. On 5th September 2024, NLU Delhi awarded her a certificate of completion, signifying her readiness to embark on legal practice in India.

5.4 Subsequently, the BCI, issued the impugned notification dated 11th November, 2023, scheduling ‘Qualifying Examination for Indian Nationals Holding Foreign Law Degrees[“Qualifying Examination”].’

Contentions of the parties

6. In the above background, the Petitioner has approached this Court, assailing the impugned notification on the ground that the Petitioner is not required to appear in the ensuing Qualifying Examination in order to be enrolled with the BCI. The Petitioner’s contentions are as follows:

6.1 The Petitioner has already cleared examinations from two BCI recognised universities—the University of Buckingham and NLU Delhi, and thus, should not be mandated to appear for a third examination. This requirement is discriminatory, as other citizens who complete their LLB from India are not subjected to a third examination.

6.2 The Petitioner has successfully completed the bridge course designed by the BCI and conducted by NLU Delhi. The course encompassed the subjects included in the Qualifying Examination syllabus. Requiring her to appear for the Qualifying Examination, therefore, is redundant and unjustified.

6.3 The impugned requirement imposes additional financial burden on the Petitioner. Having already paid substantial fees for the bridge course, she is now expected to incur additional expenses for the Qualifying Examination. Such exorbitant costs may deter students from pursuing legal education abroad, which could otherwise enrich the Indian legal profession with diverse perspectives.

6.4 The mandatory requirement of clearing the Qualifying Examination constitutes an irrational and artificial barrier, serving no legitimate purpose. There is no intelligible differentia for imposing the said examination exclusively on students with foreign degrees, especially when they have already bridged any educational gaps through recognized courses.

6.5 The High Court of Karnataka in Karan Dhananjaya v. The Bar Council of India, W.P.(C) 29996/20