A Korean native, who attained his law degree from an Indian law college, expecting to practice law in India, appealed to the Bar Council of India to resolve the issue. Now, BCI requests the States Bar Councils for their feedback to accumulate varied points of view to cover every aspect of the appeal.
The matter in hand of the Bar Council of India is Mr. Daeyoung Jung, a Korean Native who wants to enroll in the State Bar Council of India. The Delhi High Court’s proceedings in the matter were taken into account by the Council, who remarked that the court seemed to favor enrolling him.
The state bar council gets a letter from BCI requesting their insights and therefore state bar councils’ views will also represent the views of the Bar Association of India.
Proposing the appeal of Mr. Daeyoung Jung, BCI states in the letter that he is a native of Korea who completed his education in law at a law college of India and wants to begin practicing law in the High court of Delhi.
Mr. Jung stated that a person of Indian origin who completes his degree in law from a Korean law college is granted to practice law in Korea.
According to the BCI’s letter, Mr. Jung claimed that Indian nationals might practice law in Korea by earning a 3-year degree in Korean law, or “Juris Doctor”. In support of this, he cited Articles 4 and 5 of the Attorney at Law Act as well as Articles 5 and 6 of the National Bar Exam Act.
There are no nationality barriers or discrimination based on origin to exercise law in Korea stated the Korean Ministry of Justice. It was also stated that there are no restrictions on the National bar exam of Korea, if an Indian national has attained his degree of law from a Korean college he can practice as a Law Attorney in Korea.
The issues discussed by the BCI, if enrollment of people of other nationalities are allowed to practice law in India :
- Article19(g) – where the basic freedom to engage in any activity or practice any profession was granted to Indian nationals but was not extended to non-citizens.
- According to Section 7 of the Advocates Act, the BCI is obligated to protect the rights and obligations of the Indian Advocate.
- The BCI also cited Section 24 of the Advocates Act, which states that “subject to the other provisions of the Act, a national of any other country may be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll if citizens of India, suitably qualified, are authorized to practice law in that other country.”
- The Council noted that the proviso uses the term “may” rather than “must,” and that it is advisory.
- Section 35 of the Advocate Act, however no action could be taken if a foreign national left the country and went beyond Indian jurisdiction.
- Furthermore, permitting one person to be enrolled would open the floodgates to the Indian Bar, and residents of different other nations would soon be seen entering the Indian Bar, which would not sit well with the Advocates who are Indian nationals.
- As a result, the BCI stated in the letter that “there is no requirement on the BCI to accept nationals of other countries as advocates on a state roll in any State Bar Council in India, and the word may is used in a directory meaning.”
- Section 47 of the Advocates Act was also discussed, and it was stated that “the basis of reciprocity with any foreign Country is that an Indian Law Degree holder should be entitled to practice law in that Country, and then similarly India could consider allowing that foreign national holding a foreign degree to practice law in India.”
BCI asked the State Bar Council to submit their insights by 16th-17sept as the case is listed on 21st September at Delhi High Court.
