Delhi High Court Directs BCI To Enrol South Korean Citizen As Advocate Within Two Days
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (March 18) directed the Bar Council of India to enrol a South Korean citizen- Daeyoung Jung as an advocate within two days. A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that withholding the enrolment would not be permissible since there was no stay of a single judge order which had quashed BCI's decision refusing...
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (March 18) directed the Bar Council of India to enrol a South Korean citizen- Daeyoung Jung as an advocate within two days.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that withholding the enrolment would not be permissible since there was no stay of a single judge order which had quashed BCI's decision refusing to consider Jung as eligible for enrolment as an advocate.
“Under these circumstances, the enrolment shall be issued immediately to the Respondent No. 1 within a period of two days,” the Court said.
The Bench was dealing with BCI's appeal challenging the single judge's order passed on May 30, 2023. The single judge had directed BCI to process the application of Jung forthwith in accordance with law.
After the single judge's order, enrolment was issued and Jung had appeared in the All India Bar Examination.
Jung's counsel told the Court that initially, the South Korean national was reflected as having passed the AIBE examination, however, thereafter, the portal reflected that his result had been withheld.
In this circumstances, the Bench ordered: “This Court is of the opinion that in the absence of any stay which has been granted by this Court against the ld. Single Judge's judgment, withholding the enrolment of the Respondent No.1 would not be permissible.”
The appeal is now listed for hearing on March 28.
Granting relief to Jung, the single judge had said that as long as the right of the citizens of India who hold the requisite qualification to practice law in a foreign nation is preserved and no discriminatory measures are adopted in the foreign nation, the nationals of that country would clearly be entitled to seek enrolment in terms of the proviso to Section 24(1)(a) of the Advocates Act.
The court had also said that BCI clearly lost sight of the fact that Jung was not a “foreign lawyer” claiming a right to establish his own legal practice in India.
“In fact, and to the contrary, the petitioner is a foreign national who holds a degree in law which is duly recognised under the Act and thus entitling him to seek enrolment. In any case, the perceived threat and apprehension, even if it were assumed to be genuine, well founded and germane, would not detract from the right of the petitioner to pursue his claim for enrolment if otherwise permissible under the statute as it stands today," the court had said.
Title: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DEAYOUNG JUNG AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 343