Evolve mechanism to track lawyers who have not passed AIBE: Karnataka High Court to Bar Council

The Karnataka High Court has ordered the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) to evolve a mechanism to identify lawyers who are illegally practising law without passing the mandatory All India Bar Examination (AIBE) within the prescribed period.

Justice HP Sandesh has given the KSBC 45 days to come out with such a mechanism in line with various directions issued in an October 17 order. 

“It is not the only duty of the Karnataka State Bar Council to enroll and it is also the duty of the State Bar Council to maintain a roll in respect of those who are eligible and not eligible to practice. If such persons are continued to practice without clearing the AIB examination, make specific mechanism, identify such persons and take immediate action against them,” the Court said. 

The Court noted that since the initial enrolment of a law graduate as an advocate is provisional and contingent on the enrolled lawyer clearing the AIBE within two years, a proper mechanism should be put in place to track lawyers who failed to pass the AIBE within this time period.

“The State Bar Council is directed to maintain a record digitally for having made the date of enrolment and expiry period of two years. The State Bar Council is directed to track such advocates who have enrolled but not qualified to continue the practice and prepare the list of suspended role of advocates in order to curb the illegal practice,” the order said.

The Court stated that the tracking mechanism should be such that if a lawyer fails to clear AIBE within two years of enrolment, the system must immediately flag the same to the State Bar Council so that appropriate action can be taken against such errant lawyers. 

“The State Bar Council is directed to take immediate steps to initiate action against such persons who have not qualified to continue the practice since it is an offence against the society at large,” it added. 

The Court suggested that an integrated enrolment record be maintained, but with a mechanism to verify whether an enrolled advocate has cleared the AIBE.

“The State Bar Council is directed to maintain an integrated enrolment record and make verification of examination results by appropriate mechanism for verifying the AIB examination results with the aid of Bar Council of India.”

The Court also ordered KSBC to conduct periodic reviews of such aspects. 

The Court added that the KSBC should ensure that any lawyer flagged for having not cleared AIBE is allowed to defend himself/ herself before being subjected to any penalty. 

The Court passed the order in a case where a lawyer who enrolled in 2011 was accused of having practiced for around 11 years without clearing AIBE. 

A Bangarpet resident (complainant) filed a criminal complaint against the said lawyer, accusing him of cheating for having practised without clearing the AIBE.

A trial court referred the matter for a criminal investigation, following which the accused lawyer eventually filed a petition before the High Court to quash the case. 

The accused denied the allegations against him and claimed that he was being maliciously prosecuted. He argued that he was under the bona fide impression that his enrolment was unconditional, which was why he practiced for years without taking the AIBE, and that he had eventually passed the AIBE in 2021. 

The Court rejected all his arguments,including the contention that a criminal case could not have been launched into the matter since it was a matter for the KSBC’s disciplinary authorities to examine. 

“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,” the Court said. 

The Court, therefore, permitted the police to proceed with its investigation.

The Court added that it was unfortunate that the lawyer was able to practice for over a decade without appearing for the AIBE.

Therefore, it ordered KSBC to identify such lawyers promptly in future and take timely action against them. 

The matter will be heard next on November 30.

Advocate D Prabhakar represented the petitioner.

High Court Government Pleader Suhas Gowda M represented the State. Advocate G Nataraj represented the State Bar Council of Karnataka.

[Read Order]