The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to create a mechanism to identify and act against people practising law without meeting the qualification requirements prescribed by the Bar Council of India.
Justice HP Sandesh issued the direction while refusing to quash proceedings against M Prasanna Kumar, a resident of Bangarpet in Kolar district. A local advocate had filed a cheating-cum-professional misconduct complaint alleging that Kumar was practising in the Bangarpet, KGF and Kolar courts without clearing the All India Bar Examination, or AIBE.
The court said the state bar council must establish a system to prevent legal practice by people whose provisional enrolment has expired or who have not obtained the required qualification. Under the arrangement referred to in the order, provisional enrolment permits practice for two years. The court noted that Kumar had been enrolled provisionally and that he could not continue practising after that period without clearing the prescribed examination.
The Karnataka State Bar Council has been directed to maintain a digital record of provisional enrolments, including the date of enrolment and the date on which the two-year validity period expires. It must also track advocates who have enrolled provisionally but are not qualified to continue practising and prepare a list of such persons.
The court further directed the council to create a specific mechanism that would allow automatic action against people whose provisional enrolment has expired and those who continue to practise illegally. Justice Sandesh observed that such conduct amounts to an offence against society at large.
The complaint against Kumar alleged that he had represented himself as an eligible advocate despite not having cleared the AIBE. The complainant, case advocate Narayanappa of Bangarpet, alleged that this amounted to misrepresentation before judges, clients and other advocates and constituted professional misconduct.
Kumar challenged the proceedings, arguing that the complaint amounted to malicious prosecution and that he was protected under the Advocates Act from action before a trial court. After examining the material on record, however, the High Court held that his provisional enrolment was limited to two years and that he could not practise thereafter without clearing the required examination.
The court’s directions place responsibility on the state bar council to maintain an updated enrolment database and link the validity of provisional practice to qualification records. The supplied court report does not specify a deadline for implementing the digital system or the precise enforcement process that the council must adopt.
