How foreign law degree holders who did bridge course can enrol? Karnataka High Court clarifies

The Karnataka High Court recently held that that a person holding a law degree from a foreign university, who has completed the Bridge Course approved by the Bar Council of India (BCI), is not required to sit for any other qualifying examinations except the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to enroll and practice law in India. 

In an order passed on November 13, Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by one Karan Dhananjaya, a law graduate, seeking a direction to the BCI to accept AIBE as the only qualifying examination required for Indian nationals having foreign law degrees who have completed the Bridge Course.

The Court also directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to enrol Dhananjaya as an advocate.

“I am of the considered opinion that in terms of the notification dated 21.3.2023, (issued by BCI) such degree holder is not required to take up any other qualifying examination other than the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The Respondent No.3 (KSBC) is directed to enrol the petitioner as its rolls on the basis of the results of the Bridge Course without insisting for any other qualifying examination,” the High Court said.

The BCI offers a Bridge Course for Indian nationals who have a foreign law degree that is recognized by the BCI but does not meet the 12 + 3 years undergraduate degree + 3 years LLB degree, or, the 12 +5 years integrated law degree pattern for pursuing a law degree in India.

As per the petition, after his 12th standard, Dhananjaya pursued a three-year Bachelor of Law degree course from the Birmingham City University in the United Kingdom.

After he completed the course in 2020, the petitioner returned to India and completed a two-year Bridge Course from National Law School of India University (NLSIU).

After that, Dhananjaya was required to sit for BCI’s qualifying examination for foreign law degree holders and the AIBE.

While he cleared the AIBE, Dhananjaya could not clear the qualifying examination. Therefore, he approached the High Court for relief.

He argued that the Bridge Course had been introduced by BCI specifically for Indian nationals with foreign degrees. Since he had already completed such course from one of the best law colleges in the country, he should not be compelled to sit for another examination.

Dhananjaya further argued that since Indian nationals who complete their five-year law course are only required to clear the AIBE for enrolment, it was unfair for the BCI to make candidates like him undergo three different examinations.

Advocate Chetan Jadhav appeared for Dhananjaya, the petitioner.

Advocate Anubha srivastava appeared for the Bar Council of India.

Advocate G Nataraj appeared for the Karnataka State Bar Council.

[Read Order]