The recent and significant judgment of the Karnataka High Court, has effectively removed the territorial barriers to the enrolment of law graduates in India. The judgment is a big win for the lawyers. “The Landmark decision was delivered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj in the case Rajashekar S/o Mahantayya Jangam vs Bar Council of India & Anr., reaffirming the Fundamental principle of a national mobility of law graduates of national legal profession under section 24 of the Advocate’s Act, 1961”. The Court ordered that a State Bar Council cannot refuse or cancel the enrolment of a person merely because their law degree was obtained from a college or university located outside that particular state. This decision reinforces the principle of a unified and integrated legal profession across India, ensuring that any person who has graduated from a Bar Council of India (BCI)-recognized law college can register with the State Bar Council where they intend to practice.
The major points of interpretation of Section 24 of the Advocates Act, which specifies the conditions for admission as an advocate on a State Roll are as follows:
- Firstly, “The Court noted that Section 24, while listing criteria like citizenship, age (21 years), and payment of fees, only mandates that the applicant must have obtained a law degree from a University in India that is recognized by the Bar Council of India (BCI)”.
- Secondly, There is no such restriction or any clause mentioned that restricts state bar council from registering advocate based on any university.
Case Background
The Case Sri Rajashekar S/o Mahantayya Jangam vs. Bar Council of India & Anr, the petitioner, a law graduate from university which is affiliated from BCI in Uttar Pradesh, approached the Karnataka High Court as Karnataka bar council failed to process his application for enrolment. The restrict or delay was attributed, because petitioner have obtained degree from outside Karnataka. This decision mandated the KSBC to enroll the petitioner and directed that all future applications from out-of-state graduates must be considered without discrimination, focusing only on the proper verification of the certificate.
The Karnataka high court, passed a significant ruling in which they clarified the scope of section 24 under Advocates Act 1961 ruling that law graduate is not restricted to registering with state bar council from which they have obtained degree.
“The Karnataka High Court, concluded by allowing the Writ Petition and issuing a Writ of Mandamus against the Karnataka Bar Council.”
“In its final order, the High Court issued a Writ of Mandamus, directing the KSBC to:
- Enroll the petitioner as an advocate on its roll on the next enrolment date.
- Take into consideration any future application filed by a student who has passed out in law from any other State, provided the verification process of the certificate is done in a proper manner.”
Impact and Significance
This judgment is a significant victory for law graduates across the country, as they ensures that a law graduate has the freedom to practice their profession anywhere in India, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, without being confined to the state where they received their degree, .reinforces the principle that a law degree from any BCI-recognized institution is a national qualification for the purpose of practicing law and prohibits State Bar Councils from adopting unconstitutional policies that create regional barriers for entry into the legal profession.
Whereas the judgment focus on the verification process remains essential to guard against fake degrees and mandates that this process must not be used as a tool to impose unwarranted delay on other states applicants. The essential condition for enrolment must be verification of credentials, not the origin of the qualification.
This decision removed significant territorial barrier, Law graduates now have the freedom to choose the State Bar Council for enrolment based on their career aspirations, residential place or practice location. It provides the Pan- India Validity for the purpose of enrolment.
As we all Know there are some pros as well as cons of the particular decision, same with this decision comes with significant pros and cons for legal fraternity and the regulatory bodies.
The Pros of the Judgment it provides the professional Mobility without any kind of discrimination. Law graduate can easily practice Pan India without any territorial or administrative barrier.
Whereas, the cons are it has increased the risk of fake degrees, increased the verification burden which will still lead to legitimate delays in enrolment. They have overloaded the Administration and backlog processes.
Conclusion
The Karnataka high court took a significant decision which modernizes the enrolment process, making it more unified legal profession and constitutional right to practice a profession anywhere in India. They removed the administrative and territorial barriers to the enrolment of law graduates in India. It’s a victory decision for law graduates, fostering greater equality and ease of practice for young lawyers across the country. The judgment focus on the verification process remains essential to guard against fake degrees and mandates that this process must not be used as a tool to impose unwarranted delay on other states applicants.
In short, Judgment is crucial victory for the principles of constitutional freedom and professional integration and challenged the verifying credentials and combating of fake law degrees at state level.
About Author:
Adv. Pallavi Sharma, Delhi based Advocate, who is a legal practitioner and researcher with a growing interest in cyber law, IPR, constitutional law, and women’s and child rights. She recently started to contribute through analytical writing and awareness initiatives on contemporary legal issues.