A digital record of enrolment dates, a two-year expiry flag and a hearing before any action: the Karnataka High Court has told the State Bar Council how to deal with advocates practising without passing AIBE, even as it lets a cheating investigation against one such advocate go on.
Bengaluru: An advocate accused of practising for about a decade without clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) has lost his criminal petition in the Karnataka High Court, so the police may continue their investigation. The Court has also directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to evolve, within 45 days, a mechanism to identify and act against persons practising without the required qualification [M. Prasanna Kumar v. State of Karnataka and Others].
The order of Justice H P Sandesh is dated October 17, 2026, and had been reserved on October 7. Advocate D Prabhakar represented the petitioner, M. Prasanna Kumar. For the State appeared High Court Government Pleader Suhas Gowda M, and for the State Bar Council of Karnataka advocate G Nataraj.
What the State Bar Council must now do
Noting the Bar Council’s responsibility to identify and act against persons practising without the required qualification, the Court directed it to evolve a mechanism to prevent illegal practice, to report to the Court within 45 days, and to ensure, among other things, that it:
“maintain a record digitally for having made the date of enrollment and expiry period of two years”
Advocates who have enrolled but not qualified to continue in practice must also be tracked by the Council, so that action can be taken on expiry of the two-year period, and it must “take immediate steps to initiate action against such persons who have not qualified”. An integrated enrolment record, verification of examination results and periodical reviews to identify cases in which the prescribed period has lapsed are also required of it.
A safeguard was added by the Court: the advocates concerned must be given an opportunity to explain discrepancies before any action is taken, and the mechanism must provide for a final determination of each advocate’s entitlement to practise. A copy of the order is to be sent to the State Bar Council forthwith.
Why the criminal case goes on
Among other arguments, the petitioner said that he believed his enrolment to be unconditional, that the prosecution was malicious, and that the matter belonged to the Bar Council’s disciplinary process and not to a criminal court. According to the Court’s record, he did not dispute practising for about a decade before clearing the AIBE in 2021. The contention that the disciplinary mechanism excludes criminal jurisdiction was rejected: a private complainant has locus standi, the Court held, and disciplinary action and criminal proceedings can coexist.
Section 45 of the Advocates Act can be invoked alongside offences under the Indian Penal Code, it found, and the Magistrate could direct an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC without requiring the complainant to first exhaust remedies before the State Bar Council.
Dismissing the petition, the Court permitted the jurisdictional police to proceed in accordance with law and to submit a report to the trial court expeditiously.
The complaint behind the petition
A private complaint (PCR No. 224/2019) before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangarpet, filed by N. Narayanappa, started the dispute. It alleged that the petitioner had been provisionally enrolled as an advocate, had not passed the AIBE, and yet kept appearing in the courts at Bangarpet, KGF and Kolar. Sections 419, 420, 120B and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 45 of the Advocates Act, 1961, were invoked on that basis. The complaint was referred by the Magistrate for police investigation, and the petitioner approached the High Court in Criminal Petition No. 633 of 2020 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the proceedings.
All of this is allegation made in a complaint. It is untested, the High Court has expressed no view on whether any offence is made out, and the presumption of innocence applies to the petitioner. The investigation is at a preliminary stage.
Other High Courts, same concern
High Courts have returned to the two-year window for clearing the AIBE after enrolment more than once. In September 2026, the Kerala High Court, in a PIL that followed an RTI reply listing 1,157 advocates who had not cleared the examination, directed the Bar Council of Kerala to update and publish its list of such advocates within eight weeks. The AIBE has also been made mandatory by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court for advocates who graduated from 2009-10 onwards. A criminal-law dimension to the same concern is added by the Karnataka order.
Why the order matters
Where a person is alleged to have practised as an advocate without entitlement, the availability of a Bar Council disciplinary route does not close the door to a criminal complaint, the order makes clear. An administrative duty is placed on the State Bar Council too: a digital, enrolment-linked record that flags lapsed two-year periods, in place of reliance on complaints after the fact.
The built-in hearing requirement means that a flagged lawyer can explain a discrepancy before any penalty. The Council’s report is due within 45 days, and the matter is listed again on November 30, 2026.
Case Title: M. Prasanna Kumar v. State of Karnataka and Others [Criminal Petition No. 633 of 2020]
Bench: Justice H P Sandesh, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 17, 2026
Appearances: Advocate D Prabhakar for the petitioner; High Court Government Pleader Suhas Gowda M for the State; Advocate G Nataraj for the State Bar Council of Karnataka