Aided by Amicus Curiae KK Venugopal, a 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur today framed the 3 issues to be considered in the challenge to the All India Bar Exam (AIBE)..The three questions are as follows:.“1. Whether BCI can prescribe a pre-enrolment training in terms of the BCI (Training) Rules, 1995 as framed under Section 24 (3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961. If so whether the case of V Sudhir v. BCI has been correctly decided?.2. Whether a pre-enrolment exam can be prescribed by BCI as a condition precedent for enrolment?.3. If the above questions are answered in the negative, then whether a post-enrolment exam can be validly prescribed.”.On March 1, the petition, filed in 2013, came before a Bench presided by Chief Justice Thakur and comprising Justices R Banumathi and UU Lalit, after which it issued notice on March 2. Though the Bench expressed that it was not averse to the exam, it felt the need to examine whether the existing system was within the confines of the law..Two days later, the 3-judge bench expressed its intentions of referring the matter to a Constitution Bench, and requested Senior Advocate KK Venugopal to assist the court in the matter..The Court, in its order today, recorded that the questions are of considerable importance and referred all cases relating to the challenge to a Constitution Bench. It also requested KK Venugopal to continue his assistance to the court before the Constitution Bench.
Aided by Amicus Curiae KK Venugopal, a 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur today framed the 3 issues to be considered in the challenge to the All India Bar Exam (AIBE)..The three questions are as follows:.“1. Whether BCI can prescribe a pre-enrolment training in terms of the BCI (Training) Rules, 1995 as framed under Section 24 (3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961. If so whether the case of V Sudhir v. BCI has been correctly decided?.2. Whether a pre-enrolment exam can be prescribed by BCI as a condition precedent for enrolment?.3. If the above questions are answered in the negative, then whether a post-enrolment exam can be validly prescribed.”.On March 1, the petition, filed in 2013, came before a Bench presided by Chief Justice Thakur and comprising Justices R Banumathi and UU Lalit, after which it issued notice on March 2. Though the Bench expressed that it was not averse to the exam, it felt the need to examine whether the existing system was within the confines of the law..Two days later, the 3-judge bench expressed its intentions of referring the matter to a Constitution Bench, and requested Senior Advocate KK Venugopal to assist the court in the matter..The Court, in its order today, recorded that the questions are of considerable importance and referred all cases relating to the challenge to a Constitution Bench. It also requested KK Venugopal to continue his assistance to the court before the Constitution Bench.