BENGALURU: Allowing the trial against an advocate for allegedly practising for more than a decade without clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), the Karnataka High Court directed the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) to evolve a mechanism to identify such advocates and take action against them.
“The KSBC, in respect of having enrolled the advocate and when the same is provisional enrollment in terms of the rule, make an appropriate mechanism in order to prevent the illegal practice, if they have not qualified in AIBE”, the court said while directing the KSBC to maintain a record digitally for having made the date of enrollment, expiry period of two years and to track such advocates who have enrolled but not qualified to continue the practice and prepare the list of suspended roll of advocates to curb the illegal practice.
“It is not the only duty of the KSBC to enrol, and it is also the duty of the KSBC to maintain a roll in respect of those who are eligible and not eligible to practice,” said Justice H P Sandesh, dismissing the petition filed in 2020 by M Prasanna Kumar from Bangarpet challenging the order passed by a trial court to conduct an investigation against him based on a private complaint invoking the offences under Sections 419, 420, 120B and 511 of IPC read with Section 45 of the Advocates Act.
The court said that the KSBC shall take immediate steps to initiate action against such advocates who have not qualified to continue the practice since it is an offence against the society at large. The KSBC has to maintain an integrated enrollment record and make verification of examination results by an appropriate mechanism for verifying the AIBE results with the aid of the Bar Council of India.
The KSBC has to make periodical review identifying the cases in which the prescribed period for clearing the AIBE has expired and get the available records for initiation of action and also make such mechanism to give an opportunity to the said advocates to explain the discrepancies before taking any action against them to meet the principles of natural justice, the court said.