BCI Cannot Deny Enrolment Without Legal Basis: Delhi HC Orders to Enrol South Korean National as Advocate [Read Order]
Delhi High Court directs BCI to enroll a South Korean national as an advocate within two days, ruling that denial without a legal basis is impermissible.
![BCI Cannot Deny Enrolment Without Legal Basis: Delhi HC Orders to Enrol South Korean National as Advocate [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/BCI.jpg "BCI Cannot Deny Enrolment Without Legal Basis: Delhi HC Orders to Enrol South Korean National as Advocate [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to enroll a South Korean national as an advocate within two days and held that BCI cannot deny enrolment without a legal basis. The case arose from an appeal filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) against a Single Judge Bench order in W.P.(C) 8015/2020, which had directed the BCI to grant enrolment to...
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to enroll a South Korean national as an advocate within two days and held that BCI cannot deny enrolment without a legal basis.
The case arose from an appeal filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) against a Single Judge Bench order in W.P.(C) 8015/2020, which had directed the BCI to grant enrolment to Deayoung Jung, a South Korean citizen who sought to practice law in India.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
The BCI denied his application, arguing that Indian lawyers were not permitted to practice in South Korea. So under the reciprocity principle outlined in the Advocates Act, 1961, he was ineligible for enrolment.
The South Korean student challenged this decision before a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court which ruled in his favor. The court found that any individual meeting the qualifications prescribed under South Korean law could take the bar exam and practice law there. Official clarifications from the Korean Bar Association and South Korea’s Ministry of Justice supported this conclusion.
The BCI appealed this decision before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court arguing that the Single Judge’s order exceeded its jurisdiction and that the BCI, as a statutory regulatory body, has discretion in granting enrolment. The BCI’s counsel further argued that the AIBE (All India Bar Examination) result of Jung was withheld. So, he could not be granted enrolment at this stage.
How Does the Supreme Court Shape Tax Laws? Discover Landmark Rulings! Click Here
Jung’s counsel countered that the Single Judge’s ruling was never stayed or appealed. So, the BCI was obligated to comply with the order. They explained that withholding his enrolment and AIBE result was arbitrary and without legal justification.
The Division Bench, led by Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta examined the earlier order and observed that the BCI failed to produce any legal provision restricting Jung’s enrolment and that its denial was based on assumptions rather than statutory grounds. The court ruled that BCI’s refusal to grant enrolment violated the Single Judge’s directive and that withholding Jung’s AIBE result was impermissible in the absence of a stay order.
Read More: Financial Year-End GST Compliance 2025: Key Deadlines and Required Actions
The court dismissed the BCI’s appeal and directed that Jung’s enrolment must be completed within two days. The court also instructed the BCI to release Jung’s AIBE result without further delay. The matter was listed for further hearing on March 28, 2025, with a clear warning that no adjournments would be granted.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
