Reported By: Amruta Pawar

The Delhi HC in the Matter of Karan Antil v/s HC of Delhi & Ors dismissed the petition of the petitioner and held that pursuing a Master’s in law does not constitute a break in practice and therefore the enrollment cannot be suspended.

Here the petitioner was placed 35th in the order of merit in DHJS and he contended that respondent no 5 was not eligible for DHJSE-22 as he did not satisfy the criteria of continuously practising advocacy for seven years before appearing for the exam.

The petitioner contended that since the respondent studied Master of Law from the University in London he did not comply with the above requirement. 

The court observed that the profession of law has many facets, such as drafting submissions, drafting regulatory filings, representation before various tribunals etc.

The court observed that Rule 9(2) of the DHJS  does not require the condition of active practise as an advocate, in addition to the eligibility criteria under Article 233(2) of the Constitution and thus there is no difference between a person who is an advocate & a person who has practised as an advocate.

The court referred to the Resolution of the Bar Council of India & observed that practising advocates can join an LL.M. course as a regular student without suspending practice &  since the candidate’s practice as an advocate was not suspended during the said period he did not fail the eligibility criteria. 

The court held that the enrolment of a person as an advocate and grant of certificate is synonymous with him being in the practice of law.

Thus, the court held  that respondent no.5’s practise as an advocate was not suspended during the period when he was pursuing the Master of Law and thus his enrollment cannot be suspended 

And thus in light of the above observations dismissed the petition.