JUDGMENT

1. Mr. Daeyoung Jung, a citizen of South Korea impugns the order of 23 July 2020 passed by the Bar Council of India1 refusing his request for permission to be enrolled as an Advocate. He seeks to espouse a right which, according to him, would inhere in any duly qualified foreign national intending to pursue law as a profession in

1 BCI

India and seeks a declaration that his right to practise law in the country is not barred by statute.

2. BCI has on its understanding of the provisions of Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 19612 principally held that since duly qualified citizens of India have not been shown to be permitted to practice law in South Korea, the petitioner would be disentitled in terms of the Proviso to that Section. The writ petition essentially revolves upon the meaning to be ascribed to the phrase “duly qualified” as appearing in the Proviso which stands placed in Section 24(1)(a). The BCI has, additionally alluded to the “practical difficulties” associated with and challenges surrounding the enrolment of foreign nationals. It has contended that if a foreign national were to be enrolled with a State Bar Council, it is likely to encounter difficulties especially when proceedings for misconduct may be drawn. It has also referred to the situation which is likely to ensue if foreign nationals were to be accorded the privilege of enrolment and the consequential right to practice.

3. Jung is stated to have been residing in India for the past more than 16 years. Upon graduation in 2011, he was admitted to the B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) Course by the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad3. He graduated on 06 August 2016 and received a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Degree. He is stated to have initially approached the Bar Council of Delhi4 in February 2019 to obtain the

2 the Act

3 NALSAR

4 BCD

necessary enrolment documents. It is his assertion that the said request was orally denied by the BCD. BCD, while refusing to accede to his request is asserted to have informed the petitioner that he would have to approach BCI and obtain a letter from that body granting him permission to be enrolled as an advocate with the BCD.

4. In furtherance of the above, the petitioner made a representation dated 18 October 2019 to BCI. It was his assertion in that representation that since he did fulfil all the requirements stipulated in Section 24 of the Act, he was entitled to be enrolled. However, since no response was received on that representation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 67/2020 which came to be disposed of on 24 June 2020 with a direction to the BCI to decide his representation.

5. On 30 June 2020, the petitioner received a communication from the Assistant Secretary cum Law Assistant of BCI, requiring him to respond to the following queries:-

“1. What are the terms and conditions for immigration in India for a Republic of Korea citizen, and what are the terms that are applicable on you, and what were/are the terms and conditions applicable on you as a minor and as a major? Kindly provide certified documents of the Korean Embassy/Consulate in India and immigration department of/ concerned Department of Govt of India regarding visa/permission granted to you to stay in India.

2. What was the reason for you not applying for Indian Citizenship, if you have been residing in india since your childhood?

3. Whether the Government of Republic of Korea/concerned authority in Republic of Korea has allowed Indian Citizens to be Enrolled as Advocates, therein, who are allowed to practice in Republic of Korea, and if they have been so allowed, under what terms and conditions? Kindly provide relevant documents which shall be required to be certified by the Government of Republic of Korea/concerned authority in Republic of Korea and by the Indian Embassy in Republic of Korea in the regard.

4. Who is the regulatory authority in Republic of Korea for Advocates and who regulates the practice of law in Republic of Korea, and wh