The Karnataka High Court has held that State Bar Council cannot reject a lawyer's enrolment solely on the ground of lacking a Bachelor's Degree before undertaking a 3-year LL.B. course, without first referring the matter to Bar Council of India (BCI) to examine whether any alternative qualification, such as a Master's Degree, meets the criteria for enrolment.

Referring to Rule 4(a) of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, which defines a three-year law course as one undertaken after obtaining a Bachelors' Degree in any discipline of studies from a university or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said,

“The use of the expression 'or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India' is significant. The rule itself therefore contemplates that, in an appropriate case, a qualification other than a conventional Bachelor's Degree may be considered equivalent for the purpose of undertaking the three-year law course.”

The Court further added, “Consequently, the submission that Rule 4(a) mandates possession of a Bachelor's Degree in every case, without permitting consideration of any other qualification, cannot be accepted in that absolute form. The rule itself incorporates an alternative qualification, subject to its being considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India.”

The Court noted that the State Bar Council failed to follow the statutory scheme under Section 26(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which provides that where an enrolment panel of a State Bar Council proposes to refuse an enrolment application, it must refer the application to the BCI for its opinion.

“In the present case, the material placed before this Court does not disclose that the State Bar Council, after proposing to refuse the petitioner's application, made such a reference to the Bar Council of India. More importantly, the question whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner could be considered within the expression “any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India” does not appear to have been placed before the authority to whom the Rules assign the power to consider equivalence,” the High Court observed.

The present petition had been filed on by J Shivakumar, challenging the Karnataka State Bar Council order dated April 19, 2024, rejecting his application seeking enrolment as an advocate.

The petitioner, who was in Central Government service, took admission to Masters of Arts correspondence course offered by University of Mysore in 1991 and secured a postgraduate certificate in 1993 without first obtaining a formal Bachelor's Degree.

In 1994, he enrolled in a three-year LL.B. course conducted by Bangalore University. Though the university withheld the petitioner's first-year results on the ground that he had not completed a Bachelor's Degree, he completed the course and was awarded an LL.B. degree by university in 1997. After superannuation from the government service in July 2023, he applied for the enrolment before the Karnataka State Bar Council.

Right to practise any profession under Article 19 (1) (g)

Noting that the rejection of the petitioner's application would prevent him from pursuing the legal profession despite him obtaining a law degree nearly three decades ago, the High Court said, “Unlike many other professions, enrolment with the State Bar Council is a statutory prerequisite for a person to practise as an Advocate. Consequently, rejection of an application for enrolment has a direct bearing upon the petitioner's ability to pursue the profession of his choice. The right to practise a profession is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law.”

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the State Bar Council order and directed the State Bar Council to forward the petitioner's application to the Bar Council of India along with a statement of grounds in support of the refusal of the application by October 30, 2026. The BCI was directed to pass the necessary orders within 60 days, taking into account that the petitioner is a senior citizen