Disposed¶16

Bar Council of India v. Deayoung Jung and Anr.

Delhi HC25 Apr 2026LPA/711/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bar Council of India v. Deayoung Jung and Anr., Delhi High Court LPA 711/2023, decided 25.04.2026 (V. Kameswar Rao & Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.): appeal against Single Judge's order dated 30.05.2023 in W.P.(C) 8015/2020 (which had set aside the 23.07.2020 order and directed processing of the foreign-national applicant's enrolment) disposed of as nothing survived, enrolment having been granted during the appeal's pendency; BCI Rules on Enrolment and Practice of Foreign Nationals, 2025 occupy the field; respondent no.1 affirmed entitled to challenge the rules in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

No affirmative relief ordered; the appeal was disposed of as nothing further survived, with the court recording that respondent no.1 shall be within his right to challenge the rules in accordance with law. ¶16

Bar Council of India Vs Deayoung Jung and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether anything further survives in the appeal, given that respondent no.1 was granted enrolment during its pendency, the appellant stated it had no intention to cancel that enrolment, and the Bar Council of India Rules on Enrolment and Practice of Foreign Nationals, 2025 now occupy the field. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

In view of the submissions recorded (enrolment of respondent no.1 granted during the appeal's pendency, no intention to cancel it, and the legislative field occupied by the new rules), nothing further survived in the appeal and the court disposed of the appeal.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The court affirmed that respondent no.1 shall be within his right to challenge the rules framed by the Bar Council of India, in accordance with law.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.) of the High Court of Delhi disposed of LPA 711/2023 filed by the Bar Council of India against the order dated 30.05.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 8015/2020, which had set aside the order dated 23.07.2020 and directed the appellant to process the enrolment application of respondent no.1. Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of the appeal respondent no.2 had granted enrolment to respondent no.1, that the appellant had no intention to cancel it, and that the impugned order preceded the Bar Council of India Rules on Enrolment and Practice of Foreign Nationals, 2025 ('the legislative field is occupied'); counsel for respondent no.1 conceded nothing further survived. The court held that respondent no.1 shall be within his right to challenge the rules in accordance with law and disposed of the appeal (decision dated 25.04.2026).

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

LPA 711/2023 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gaurav Sarin Sr. Adv., with Mr. Preetpal Singh, Ms. Medha Sharma, Ms. Pooja, Ms. Simran Kumari and Mr. Gaurav, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

DEAYOUNG JUNG AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashim Sood, Mr. Ekansh Gupta, Ms. Senu Nizar, Mr. Kartikeya Jaiswal, Mr. Karan Kumar, Advs.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R

¶7

% 25.04.2026

¶8

The matter is taken up today as the date fixed, i.e. 03.03.2026 was declared a holiday vide notification no. 64/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated 27.02.2026.

¶9

This appeal lays challenge to the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 8015/2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 23.07.2020 in writ petition and directed appellant herein to process the application for enrolment of the respondent no.1.

¶10

It is submitted by Mr. Gaurav Sarin, learned senior counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no.2 has granted enrolment to the respondent no.1. He also states that the Bar Council

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 12:13:59

¶13

of India/Bar Council of Delhi have no intention to cancel the enrolment which was already granted in favour of the respondent no.1. According to Mr. Sarin, the impugned order was passed when the Bar Council of India Rules on Enrolment and Practice of Foreign Nationals, 2025 were not in place. He states that the respondent no.1 having been enrolled needs to practice in accordance with law/statutory rules. Suffice to state the legislative field is occupied.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that in view of the submissions made by Mr. Sarin, nothing further survives in the appeal. He states the respondent no.1 if so advised, may like to challenge the rules which have been framed by the Bar Council of India.

¶15

The respondent no.1 shall be within in his right to challenge the rules in accordance with law.

¶16

The appeal is disposed of.

¶17

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶18

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶19

APRIL 25, 2026 rk

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 12:13:59

Bar Council of India v. Deayoung Jung and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bar Council of India v. Deayoung Jung and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Menarini India Private Limited Vs Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited

Rhino Finance Private Limited Vs Golden Bag Technologies Private Limited

Prism Johnson Limited Vs Acc Limited & Ors.

Loreal S.A. Vs Spv Laboratories Private Limited

The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Tarakant Sangwani

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Vikram Singh