Introduction:

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to enrol Daeyoung Jung, a South Korean citizen, as an advocate within two days. The division bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, emphasized that withholding Jung’s enrolment was impermissible, especially since there was no stay on the earlier single judge’s order that had quashed the BCI’s decision deeming Jung ineligible for enrolment.

Background:

Daeyoung Jung’s journey to enrolment has been fraught with challenges. Having spent a significant portion of his life in India, Jung pursued his legal education here, obtaining a degree recognized under the Advocates Act. In February 2019, he approached the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) for enrolment but faced resistance, primarily due to his foreign nationality. The BCI, referencing Section 24 of the Advocates Act, argued that since Indian nationals weren’t permitted to practice law in South Korea, Jung’s enrolment in India was untenable.

Arguments Presented:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• Reciprocity and Non-Discrimination: Jung’s counsel contended that as long as Indian citizens with requisite qualifications are allowed to practice law in a foreign nation without discriminatory measures, nationals of that country should be entitled to seek enrolment in India under the proviso to Section 24(1)(a) of the Advocates Act.
• Definition of ‘Duly Qualified’: The term “duly qualified” should be interpreted to mean possessing the necessary legal qualifications recognized by the Act, irrespective of nationality.
• Not a ‘Foreign Lawyer’: Jung wasn’t seeking to establish an independent legal practice as a foreign lawyer but aimed to integrate into the Indian legal system, having obtained his law degree from an Indian institution.

Respondent’s Arguments (BCI):

• Reciprocity Clause: The BCI maintained that since Indian nationals aren’t permitted to practice law in South Korea, enrolling a South Korean national in India would violate the reciprocity principle embedded in Section 24 of the Advocates Act.
• Practical Challenges: The BCI expressed concerns about potential challenges in regulating foreign nationals, especially concerning disciplinary proceedings and enforcement of professional standards.
• Rule-Making Authority: The BCI argued that its rule-making power under Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act allows it to impose additional conditions for enrolment, including nationality restrictions.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

The single judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, in his May 30, 2023, judgment, addressed the contentions as follows:

• Reciprocity Interpretation: The court opined that the reciprocity clause should ensure that Indian citizens aren’t subjected to discriminatory practices abroad. In the absence of explicit nationality restrictions in the foreign nation, its citizens should be eligible for enrolment in India, provided they meet other statutory requirements.
• Role of the BCI: The BCI’s rule-making power is intended to broaden the eligibility criteria for enrolment, not to impose additional restrictions. The court emphasized that the BCI cannot use its authority to introduce disqualifications not stipulated in the Act.
• Jung’s Eligibility: Given that Jung possessed a law degree recognized under the Advocates Act and there were no explicit nationality-based restrictions in South Korea against Indian nationals, the court found no legal impediment to his enrolment.

Following this judgment, Jung was issued an enrolment and appeared for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). However, his results were subsequently withheld, prompting further legal proceedings. The division bench, on March 18, 2025, reiterated the absence of any stay against the single judge’s order and directed the BCI to process Jung’s enrolment within two days.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court’s directive to the Bar Council of India to enrol South Korean national Daeyoung Jung as an advocate underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding legal reciprocity and non-discrimination. This landmark decision not only paves the way for qualified foreign nationals to practice law in India but also reinforces the principles of fairness and inclusivity in the legal profession. As globalization continues to blur geographical boundaries, such judgments play a pivotal role in fostering international legal collaboration and mutual respect among nations.