The Delhi High Court held that it is mandatory for foreign law degree holders to take the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) qualifying exam for foreign degree-holding nationals to be eligible to practice law in India, even if they have already completed a bridge course from an Indian law college.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court reaffirmed the necessity for individuals holding foreign law degrees to clear the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) qualifying examination in order to practice law in India. This requirement remains applicable even for those who have completed a bridge course at an Indian law institution.
Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized that the qualifying exam is indispensable for assessing whether foreign law graduates meet the professional standards required for legal practice in India.
Court’s Observation on Bridge Course and Qualifying Examination
The judgment arose in the context of a plea by a law graduate who pursued a two-year bridge course at the National Law University, Delhi (NLU Delhi), after obtaining her law degree from the University of Buckingham.
While declining to exempt the petitioner from the qualifying exam, the Court clarified:
“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.”
This November 28 ruling underscores that completing a bridge course does not substitute the mandatory requirement to pass the BCI qualifying examination.
Arguments Against the Requirement
The petitioner challenged the BCI’s mandate, arguing that she had already cleared rigorous academic requirements, including examinations conducted by the University of Buckingham and the bridge course at NLU Delhi, both of which are recognized by the BCI.
She contended that these qualifications should suffice to allow her to practice law in India without the additional qualifying exam.
However, the Court observed that the petitioner was well aware of the need to appear for the BCI qualifying exam. Referring to a communication from the BCI in October 2021, Justice Narula noted:
“By voluntarily acting upon the communication and undertaking the bridge course, the Petitioner has implicitly acknowledged and accepted the regulatory framework governing her enrolment.”
Differentiating Judgments: Delhi HC vs Karnataka HC
The petitioner cited a recent Karnataka High Court judgment where a similarly placed graduate was exempted from the qualifying exam.
Justice Narula, however, distinguished the two cases, noting that the Karnataka High Court’s ruling was based on notifications issued by the BCI in 2023.
The current case, in contrast, involves newer notifications issued in 2024. The Court concluded:
“The observations of the Karnataka High Court cannot be extended to the present case, as they pertain to an entirely distinct regulatory framework.”
Representation in the Case
The petitioner, Mehak Oberoi, was represented by a team of advocates, including Manish Kaushik, Mishal Johari, Ajit Singh Joher, Anubhav Gupta, Aryan Pandey, Chirag Sharma, Mainak Sarkar, and Aparna Kushwah.
Representing the Bar Council of India were advocates Preetpal Singh and Yash Saini. Additional respondents in the case were represented by advocates T Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Yamini Singh, Abhijit Chakravarty, Arun Hussain, Bhanu Gulati, and Aabhas Sukhramani.
Conclusion
This ruling reaffirms the mandatory nature of the BCI qualifying examination for foreign law degree holders, regardless of their additional academic credentials from Indian institutions.
It reflects the regulatory intent to ensure uniform professional standards for legal practitioners in India, aligning with evolving frameworks and judicial interpretations.
CASE TITLE:
Mehak Oberoi vs Bar Council of India & Ors
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on BCI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
