Foreign law degree holder cannot claim exemption from BCI exam citing bridge course: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently 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 [Mehak Oberoi vs Bar Council of India & Ors]..Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the BCI qualifying exam is essential to assess a foreign law degree holder's readiness to meet professional standards of Indian legal practice. The Court made the observation while declining to order the extension of an exemption from the qualifying exam for a law graduate who had completed a two-year bridge course in the National Law University, Delhi (NLUD) after reading law at the University of Buckingham."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,” the Court stated in its November 28 ruling..A graduate holding a foreign law degree had opposed the BCI’s requirement for her to clear a ‘Qualifying Examination for Indian Nationals Holding Foreign Law Degrees' to practice the law in India. She contended that since she has already cleared exams conducted by University of Buckingham as well as a bridge course from NLU Delhi, which are recognised by the BCI, she should not be required to appear for another exam. .The Court, however, observed that the law graduate was already aware of the requirement to appear for the BCI qualifying examination as a precondition for enrolment and practicing in India. In this regard, the Court referred to a communication issued by the BCI in October 2021 after she approached it to for permission to undertake a bridge course. “By voluntarily acting upon the communication and undertaking the bridge course, the Petitioner has implicitly acknowledged and accepted the regulatory framework governing her enrolment,” the Court stated. .The Court also distinguished a recent Karnataka High Court judgment in which a similarly placed graduate was exempt from appearing for the qualifying examination. Justice Narula noted that the case before the Karnataka High Court was linked to notifications issued by the BCI in 2023, while in the present case newer notifications issued in 2024 by the BCI were relevant. The Court concluded that the observations of the Karnataka High Court cannot be extended to the present case, “as they pertain to an entirely distinct regulatory framework.” .Advocates Manish Kaushik, Mishal Johari, Ajit Singh Joher, Anubhav Gupta, Aryan Pandey, Chirag Sharma, Mainak Sarkar and Aparna Kushwah appeared for the petitioner, Mehak Oberoi.Advocates Preetpal Singh and Yash Saini appeared for the Bar Council of India. Advocates T Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Yamini Singh, Abhijit Chakravarty, Arun Hussain, Bhanu Gulati, and Aabhas Sukhramani appeared for another respondent. .[Read order]