The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) to establish a system for identifying advocates who continue to practise without clearing the mandatory All India Bar Examination (AIBE) within the prescribed period.
Justice HP Sandesh has given the State Bar Council 45 days to develop a mechanism that tracks enrolment dates, monitors examination results and flags advocates who fail to meet the eligibility requirements for continuing legal practice.
The Court emphasised that the Bar Council’s responsibility extends beyond enrolling law graduates. It must also maintain accurate records of who is eligible to practise and take prompt action against those who are not.
“It is not the only duty of the Karnataka State Bar Council to enroll and it is also the duty of the State Bar Council to maintain a roll in respect of those who are eligible and not eligible to practice,” the Court observed in its October 17 order.
Digital records to flag ineligible advocates
The Court directed the KSBC to maintain digital enrolment records capturing the date of admission to the profession and the expiry of the two-year period within which an advocate is required to clear the AIBE.
The proposed system must automatically flag advocates who fail to qualify within the stipulated period, enabling the council to identify such cases and initiate appropriate proceedings.
The Bench also called for an integrated enrolment database, with examination results verified in coordination with the Bar Council of India. Periodic reviews must be conducted to ensure that the tracking system remains effective.
The Court stressed that action against advocates who fail to meet the requirements should not be delayed, describing continued practice without the necessary qualification as a matter of concern for society.
At the same time, it clarified that advocates identified through the proposed mechanism must be given an opportunity to present their defence before any penalty is imposed.
Case exposes a gap in monitoring
The directions came while the Court was dealing with a case involving an advocate who enrolled in 2011 and was accused of practising for approximately 11 years without clearing the AIBE.
A resident of Bangarpet had lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the advocate had cheated by practising without fulfilling the examination requirement. A trial court subsequently referred the matter for a criminal investigation.
The advocate approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings. He denied the allegations, claiming that he had been under the genuine impression that his enrolment permitted him to practise without further conditions. He also alleged that the complaint was motivated by malice.
The advocate further submitted that he had eventually cleared the AIBE in 2021 and argued that the issue should have been dealt with through the Bar Council’s disciplinary process rather than criminal proceedings.
The High Court rejected these arguments and allowed the police investigation to continue.
“Existence of a disciplinary mechanism does not, by itself, extinguish the jurisdiction of a competent criminal court to examine conduct which independently satisfies the ingredients of a criminal offence,” the Court held.
Expressing concern that the advocate had allegedly been able to practise for more than a decade without appearing for the examination, the Bench said the Bar Council needed a more effective way to identify similar cases before they continued for years.
The Court consequently directed the KSBC to put the tracking mechanism in place, maintain updated records and act promptly against advocates found ineligible to continue practising.
The matter is scheduled to be heard next on November 30.