IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28563 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

YOGANANDA H N S/O LATE. NARASIMHA MURTHY H M AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 30 GROUND FLOOR, BALAJI KRUPA, 2ND CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, KAMALANAGAR, BENGALURU-560079.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. H N VENKATESHA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL HIGH COURT BUILDING DR. AMEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY, 21 ROUSE AVENUE, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110002.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHOWRI H R., ADVOCATE FOR R1.

VIDE ORDER DATED 19.09.2025;

SRI. ANUBHA SRIVASTAVA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR ENROLMENT AS AN ADVOCATE AND CONNECTED RECORDS INCLUDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL, BENGALURU DATED 09.09.2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 11.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE -L TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND PERUSE THE SAME; II) WRITS BY DECLARING AND QUASHING THE SAID ORDER OF (II) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 09.09.2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 11.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE L AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1) (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; (III) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE 1^ST RESPONDENT TO ENROL THE PETITIONER ON THE ROLLS OF KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT INSIST THE PETITIONER TO REAPPEAR FOR ALL INDIA BAR EXAMINATION AGAIN IN VIEW OF PETITIONER HAS ALREADY PASSED THE SAID EXAMINATION DURING MARCH 2025.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner graduated in commerce from Bangalore University and possesses an LLB degree from Karnataka State Law University. The petitioner is also successful in the All India Bar Examination, but he is obstructed by the first respondent’s impugned order dated 09.09.2025 [Annexure-L] in commencing his professional journey as an advocate. The first respondent has informed the petitioner that his application for enrollment is rejected for contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules [the BCI Rules].

2. The first respondent, after referring to the Apex Court’s decisions on the efficacy of a law degree conferred when a person is in full-time employment, has informed the petitioner that the documents produced by himself along with the application conclusively establish that during the entire course [2021-2024] he was in full employment with M/s. Synthetic Packers Private Limited and that the permission granted by his employer does not alter the fact that he was a salaried employee while pursuing his graduation in law.

3. Sri H. N. Venkatesha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon a Division Bench’s judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1069/2021 [GM-RES], This writ appeal is disposed of on 15.02.2022 to contend that because the petitioner holds a valid degree and he has successfully cleared the All India Bar Examination, and because the petitioner's graduation

in law has not been called in question, it would not be open to the first respondent to refuse enrollment. The learned counsel argues that the first respondent should have enrolled the petitioner as an advocate and then taken action under Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the Act’] after due notice to him.

4. Sri H.R. Sowri, the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that the Certificate issued by the petitioner's employer demonstrates that he was in service when he was pursuing his graduation in law,