Foreign Law Degree Holders Have To Pass BCI's Qualifying Exam To Practice In India, Even If They Have Cleared Bridge Course: Delhi HC

In doing so, the Court made a distinction between 'equivalency', referring to the bridge course requirement for foreign degree holders and 'qualification', necessary to assess the candidate's competency to practice law in India. 

Justice Sanjeev Narula was considering the petition of a law graduate from the University of Buckingham, United Kingdom, a university recognized by the BCI. After her UK degree, the petitioner completed the mandatory 2-year bridge course from National Law University, Delhi.

The petitioner challenged the notification issued by BCI on November 11, scheduling the '21st Qualifying Examination for Indian Nationals Holding Foreign Law Degrees'.The petitioner's grievance is that despite clearing two examinations conducted by two BCI-recognised universities, she is being compelled to appear for an additional Qualifying Examination.

The Court referred to Rule 37 of Chapter V of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, which provides conditions for an Indian citizen with a foreign law degree to be recognized for enrolment. One of the conditions is that the candidate should pass the examination conducted by the BCI in substantive and procedural law subjects, which are specifically needed to practice law in India.

The Court noted that the petitioner was fully aware of the requirement to clear the Qualifying Examination as a precondition for enrolment under the Advocates Act, 1961. It stated that the petitioner accepted this condition without any reservation and enrolled in the bridge course accordingly.

It observed that “By voluntarily acting upon the communication and undertaking the bridge course, the Petitioner has implicitly acknowledged and accepted the regulatory framework governing her enrolment. Permitting her to now challenge this condition, particularly when the examination schedule has already been notified, would run counter to the well-settled principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate. It is axiomatic that a person who accepts the benefit of a condition cannot subsequently contest the corresponding obligation arising from the same”.

The petitioner had contended that the requirement of the Qualifying Examination to practice law in India was irrational and served no legitimate purpose. She claimed that this requirement was discriminatory, lacking any intelligible differentia between citizens who completed their L.L.B. degrees in India and citizens with foreign degrees. 

BCI argued that the petitioner was explicitly informed about the requirement to appear for the Qualifying Examination in the bar body's letter of October 26, 2021, which granted her permission to undergo the bridge course. Having been aware of this condition and having acted upon it by enrolling in the bridge course, the Petitioner cannot now challenge the requirement at this belated stage, it said. 

The petitioner relied on Karan Dhananjaya vs. Bar Council of India & Others (2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 469), where the Karnataka High Court based on a 2023 BCI notification directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to enroll a foreign law degree holder who completed 2 years of Bridge Course on its rolls, without insisting for any other qualifying examinations other than AIBE.

However, the Court distinguished Karan Dhananjaya from the present case and said that the petitioner's reliance on it was misplaced. It noted that Karan Dhananjaya dealt with a 2023 notification that delineated specific combinations of legal education and the corresponding obligations for candidates. While the present case revolved around a November 11 notification issued this year which lays down the schedule for the Qualifying Examination to be conducted between December 14-19.

 It noted that the BCI issues a fresh notification for the Qualifying Examination each year and thus, the judgment Karan Dhananjaya which was based on the 2023 notification cannot be applied to the present case as they pertain to distinct regulatory frameworks.

Further, while differentiating between equivalency and qualification, the Court remarked that while bridge course ensure equivalency in the duration of legal education with the Indian law degrees, this does not do away with the necessity of demonstrating competency required for legal practice in India. It observed that the Qualifying Examination tests the candidate's readiness to meet the professional standards of Indian legal practice.

“It is imperative to note that that the bridge course serves a distinct and essential purpose—it ensures equivalency in the duration of legal education to align it with the structure prescribed for Indian law degrees. However, achieving such equivalency does not obviate the necessity of demonstrating competency in substantive and procedural law subjects required for legal practice in India. The Qualifying Examination, as mandated under Rule 37 of the Bar Council of India Rules, fulfils this objective. The distinction between equivalency and qualification is both clear and consequential.”

The Court was of the view that exempting the petitioner from the Qualifying Examination would undermine the regulatory framework and also create an inconsistency in the application of Rule 37 of the BCI Rules.

It said, “The successful completion of the bridge course undoubtedly grants the Petitioner equivalency in educational terms; however, it does not dispense with the statutory requirement to appear for the Qualifying Examination. To exempt the Petitioner from this obligation would not only undermine the regulatory framework, but would also create an inconsistency in the application of Rule 37. Such an interpretation is untenable in law and cannot form the basis of the relief sought.”

The Court thus rejected the petitioner's arguments and disposed of the petition.

Case title: MEHAK OBEROI v/s BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1330

Click Here To Read/Download Order