Read Time: 06 minutes
“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 court outlined.
The Delhi High Court, recently, directed the Bar Council of India to register Deayoung Jung, a South Korean Citizen, as an Advocate. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, “the enrolment shall be issued immediately to the Respondent No. 1 within a period of two days”.
The case stemmed from an appeal filed by the BCI challenging the judgment of the Single Judge. Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, representing BCI, submitted that he had not yet received instructions regarding the reciprocity granted by South Korea to Indian lawyers.
The court observed that the order dated October 18, 2023, had sufficiently addressed the issue of reciprocity. In the impugned judgment, the Single Judge thoroughly examined the relevant statutes under South Korean law, specifically the Attorney-At-Law Act and the National Bar Examination Act.
It was concluded that there existed no nationality-based restriction preventing qualified Indian citizens from practicing law in South Korea. It was also observed from the clarifications from the President of the Korean Bar Association and the South Korean Ministry of Justice confirmed that “in the absence of a nationality bar in the statutory framework, any individual could take the bar exam and practice law in South Korea”.
Another issue of concern, in this case, was the direction issued by the Single Judge, which mandated the Bar Council of India to grant enrolment to Respondent No. 1. The relevant portion of the judgment stated that the impugned order dated July 23, 2020, stood quashed and set aside, and the Bar Council of India was directed to process the enrolment application in accordance with the law.
Following this judgment, the enrolment was granted, and Respondent No. 1 subsequently appeared for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
Advocate Ashim Sood, representing the Korean Citizen, submitted that the portal initially reflected that his client had passed the AIBE. However, later, the portal indicated that the result had been withheld.
The court observed that the order dated October 29, 2024, clearly stated that while the appeal remained pending, no notice had been issued, nor had a stay been granted against the impugned order. Thus, compliance with the order was necessary, subject to the outcome of the appeal.
The court opined that, in the absence of any stay against the judgment of the Single Judge, withholding the enrolment of Respondent No. 1 was impermissible. Therefore, under these circumstances, the enrolment was to be issued immediately within two days.
The court further scheduled the matter for March 28, 2025.
For Appellant: Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey with Advocates Preet Pal Singh, Akshay Amritanshu, Drishti Saraf and Pragya UpadhyayFor Respondent: Advocates Ashim Sood, Ekansh Gupta, Prateek Kundu, Ankur Singhal and Isha KhuranaCase Title: BCI v Deayoung Jung (LPA 711/2023)
Please Login or Register
