The KSBC’s decision seems to be based on fears of fake degree holders entering the legal profession.
BENGALURU: The Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) has recently made a decision to deny enrollment to law graduates who earned their three-year LLB degrees from institutions outside Karnataka. This decision has triggered a heated debate among legal experts and law aspirants.
Senior advocate Brijesh Kalappa, who practices in the Supreme Court of India and the Karnataka High Court, has strongly opposed this move.
He said, “The move violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.”
The KSBC’s decision seems to be based on fears of fake degree holders entering the legal profession.
However, Kalappa criticized this approach, stating, “Courts have consistently held that ‘let a hundred guilty persons go free, but let not one innocent person be punished.’ Here, every degree holder is being viewed with suspicion.”
He further highlighted that the decision goes against the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Referring to the landmark case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), Kalappa argued that this move is discriminatory and unsustainable. He also pointed out that forgery or obtaining fake degrees could occur within Karnataka as well, making the decision unjustified.
Kalappa emphasized that the decision infringes on the fundamental right to practice a profession, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), he said, “State action must pass the ‘golden triangle’ test of Articles 14, 19, and 21.”
Another pressing issue raised by Kalappa is the high enrollment fees charged by the KSBC.
ALSO READ: [Misappropriation Case] Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR Against State Bar Council
He stated, “The exorbitant fees on potential advocates is oppressive and contrary to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Kalappa referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2023), which stated that State Bar Councils cannot charge more than Rs.750 for enrollment under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
In that ruling, a Bench of then Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala clarified that the prescribed fees are Rs.750 for general category candidates and Rs.125 for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) candidates.
Adding to the controversy, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has filed a plea before the Supreme Court seeking to increase the enrollment fee for advocates from Rs750 to Rs.25,000. This proposal has sparked significant backlash among the legal fraternity, with many arguing that such a steep hike will disproportionately affect aspiring lawyers from low-income families.
In Karnataka, aspiring lawyers face challenges as the KSBC continues to charge fees far exceeding the Supreme Court’s prescribed limits. This has led to widespread frustration, with many feeling disillusioned by the very system they aim to serve.
Kalappa concluded by reiterating the need for fairness and equality in the legal profession, urging authorities to reconsider the policies that hinder aspiring lawyers.
