Criminal Action Can Be Taken Against Advocates Practising Without Clearing AIBE: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that an advocate who continues to practice in Courts without clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) within the mandatory two-year period faces criminal liability under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 45 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Court further directed the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) to devise a mechanism which would alert the Council automatically, after the expiry of the two-year period, of such persons who continue to practice illegally.

Justice H.P. Sandesh held that the existence of a disciplinary mechanism under the Advocates Act, 1961, does not exclude the jurisdiction of criminal courts to examine conduct that independently satisfies the ingredients of a criminal offence.

“It is very clear that the principle emerging from the decisions that disciplinary authority conferred upon the Bar Council cannot be assumed by a court merely because the conduct complained of relates to the legal profession. Equally, the 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,” Justice HP Sandesh said, while referring to several Apex Court rulings, including SCBA vs Union of India (1998), R Antulay vs Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & ohers (1984) and BCI vs Bonnie Foi Law College & others (2023).

The Court said that the criminal jurisdiction can be invoked against the petitioner— who allegedly practised for a decade without qualifying AIB exam— for the offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Advocates Act, 1961.

“The judgments which have been referred supra are very clear that the complainant has got locus standi to institute a criminal complaint against the petitioner, even without approaching the Karnataka State Bar Council,” the Court added.

It also noted a KSBC letter dated August 7, 2026, addressed to the presidents and secretaries of all recognised bar associations in the state, stating that failure to pass the AIB examination would result in suspension of license to practice. The same position was mentioned in a Bar Council of India letter dated July 29, 2026, the Court observed.

The case arose from a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash proceedings pending before the JMFC at Bangarpet. The complainant, an advocate, alleged that the petitioner was provisionally enrolled with the Karnataka State Bar Council in 2011 but had practised for nearly a decade without clearing the mandatory AIBE, thereby cheating clients as well as the judicial institution. The Magistrate referred it for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The High Court approved the Magistrate's action as the alleged conduct sconstitutes an offence against the society.

“This Court also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A R ANTULAY referred supra wherein also principle recognizes that a criminal offence is not necessarily an injury confined to the individual directly affected by the Act. It is nothing but an offence against the society at large, i.e., against the institution and it is not only a personal suffering of an injury unless the law provides otherwise, the Court can exercise the power under Section 190 and Magistrate can take cognizance,” the Court said.

Commenting on the investigation referred to the police by the Magistrate, Justice Sandesh said, “It is the duty of the Investigating Officer and domain of the Investigating Officer to investigate that whether it attracts Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences and also whether it attracts Section 45 of the Advocates Act.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition, and permitted the jurisdictional police to proceed against the petitioner and file a report before the Trial Court.

It further directed the KSBC to formulate a mechanism to track advocates who do not pass the AIB examination within two years, ensuring that non-compliance with this mandatory requirement is automatically flagged to enable the Bar Council to take action against persons who continue to practice illegally.

It further directed the KSBC to devise a mechanism to track advocates who fail to clear the AIB examination within two years. This aims to ensure that any unauthorized practice is automatically flagged, enabling the Bar Council to take prompt action.