Foreign Degrees and Foreign Universities
Chapter Twenty-Three
Syllabus topic 1, "Objective of Legal Education"
Pages 85 to 87 of 543
In one line
An Indian who takes a law degree abroad does not automatically qualify to practise in India: the Rules provide separately for the recognition of foreign universities, for the enlisting of them in Schedule V, and for a qualifying test.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: rule 37 of the Rules of Legal Education 2008 deals with a degree of a foreign university obtained by an Indian citizen; rule 38 provides for enlisting a foreign university in Schedule V of the Rules; rule 39 provides for the recognition of a foreign university; and rule 40 prescribes a standard test for recognition, so that a foreign law degree qualifies its holder for enrolment in India only on the conditions the Bar Council of India lays down.
Why the question arises at all
Because section 24(1)(c) of the Advocates Act contemplates it. The section's clauses cover degrees obtained in India and degrees obtained abroad, and the foreign case is subject to conditions the Bar Council may impose.
Because law is national in a way that most subjects are not. An engineering degree describes materials that behave the same everywhere. A law degree describes a particular legal system, and a graduate trained in another one has not been taught the law they propose to practise.
And because the flow is real and increasing. Indians take law degrees abroad, and foreign lawyers seek to work in India, which is the wider liberalisation question the Law Commission's 1999 working paper raised and the 184th Report set aside.
Rule 37: an Indian citizen's foreign degree
Rule 37 addresses the case directly: a degree in law of a foreign university obtained by an Indian citizen.
What the Rule is doing. It is not refusing recognition, and it is not granting it automatically. It sets the conditions on which such a degree may count, and it makes those conditions the Council's to fix.
The reason a condition is proper. A graduate of a foreign law school will not have studied the Indian Constitution, the Indian law of contract, Indian procedure or Indian evidence. Some of that gap is closed by a qualifying test, and some by requiring the degree to be from a university the Council has recognised.
Rules 38 and 39: enlisting and recognition
Rule 38 provides for enlisting a foreign university, whose name goes into Schedule V of the Rules.
Rule 39 provides for the recognition of a foreign university. Recognition and enlisting are related but not identical: enlisting is the entry of the name in the Schedule, and recognition is the Council's decision that the university's degree is acceptable for its purposes.
Schedule V is the list. As with Schedule I for Indian universities, a student or applicant must consult the current list rather than a printed copy, since it changes.
Foreign Degrees and Foreign Universities
Rule 40: the standard test
Rule 40 provides for a standard test for recognition. It is the mechanism by which a person holding a foreign degree demonstrates that they have the Indian legal knowledge the degree did not supply.
Distinguish it from the All India Bar Examination. The Bar Examination of chapter 420 is taken by every entrant to the profession, Indian degree or not. The rule 40 test belongs to the recognition process for a foreign qualification, and is a different instrument answering a different question.
And distinguish both from equivalence. A university or an employer may decide that a foreign degree is equivalent to an Indian one for its own purposes. That decision has no effect on enrolment, which is governed by section 24 and by these Rules.
The wider question these rules sit inside
Whether foreign lawyers and foreign law firms may practise in India is a much larger question than rules 37 to 40, and it was one of the five chapters of the Law Commission's 1999 working paper, on the entry of foreign legal consultants and the liberalisation of legal practice.
The 184th Report deliberately left it aside and confined itself to legal education and professional training, which is a useful fact for an answer: the Commission separated the education question from the market access question.
For this syllabus, the point to make is the educational one. A legal system may reasonably insist that a person who advises on its law has been taught it, and rules 37 to 40 are the machinery of that insistence rather than a protectionist device.
A worked example
Meera is an Indian citizen who takes a law degree at a university abroad and wants to practise in Mumbai.
First question: is her university enlisted and recognised? Rules 38 and 39, with Schedule V. If it is not, the degree does not open the door however good the university.
Second question: has she satisfied the conditions on a foreign degree under rule 37? Those are the Council's to fix, and may include the standard test under rule 40.
Third question: is she otherwise eligible under section 24? Age, disqualifications under section 24A, and the enrolment fee under section 24(1)(f), which Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 558, decided on 30 July 2024, held to be the only sum a State Bar Council may demand, holding that charging more violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), with prospective effect. The facts and full holding are at chapter 420.
Fourth question: the All India Bar Examination. Like every other entrant, she must pass it before she may practise, on the authority of Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 130.
Foreign Degrees and Foreign Universities
Her friend Thomas, a foreign national with a foreign law degree, faces a different question altogether, which is market access rather than education, and is outside these Rules.
Quick revision
Rule 37: a degree of a foreign university obtained by an Indian citizen, and the conditions on which it counts.
Rule 38: enlisting a foreign university, whose name goes into Schedule V.
Rule 39: recognition of a foreign university.
Rule 40: a standard test for recognition, distinct from the All India Bar Examination, which every entrant takes.
Why conditions are proper: law is national, and a graduate trained in another system has not been taught the law they propose to practise.
The wider question, entry of foreign legal consultants and liberalisation of practice, was in the Law Commission's 1999 working paper and was deliberately left out of the 184th Report.
Test yourself
1. What do rules 38 and 39 provide, and where does the list of foreign universities sit? Rule 38 provides for enlisting a foreign university and rule 39 for recognition of a foreign university. The list is Schedule V of the Rules of Legal Education 2008, and it changes, so the current list must be consulted.
2. Distinguish the rule 40 test from the All India Bar Examination. The rule 40 standard test belongs to the recognition of a foreign qualification and asks whether the holder has the Indian legal knowledge their degree did not supply. The All India Bar Examination is taken by every entrant to the profession, whatever their degree, and its validity rests on Bonnie Foi Law College.
3. Why is it defensible to impose conditions on a foreign law degree that would be objectionable for, say, a foreign engineering degree? Because law is the law of a particular system. An engineering qualification describes materials that behave the same everywhere, while a foreign law graduate has not studied the Constitution, contract law, procedure or evidence of the system they propose to practise in.
4. What did the Law Commission do with the question of foreign lawyers practising in India? Its 1999 working paper included a chapter on the entry of foreign legal consultants and the liberalisation of legal practice, but the 184th Report of 2002 confined its recommendations to legal education and professional training and left that question aside.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.