AIBE - A mockery of the Indian legal education system

Recently, I overheard the CJI say, “Padho Bhai” in the courtroom while he rejected a petition to lower the cut-off marks for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). With the cut-off standing at a low 45% for general category students and 40% for SC/ST students, his reaction to the petition seemed logical.

However, the point of contention remains the larger validity of this test and whether it manages to filter out ‘advocates’ from ‘students’; students against whom it discriminates, by calling them ineligible to practice in courts right away after completing 5-6 years of their legal education from premier institutes across the country and abroad.

Before raising any arguments or giving any reasoning, it is important to understand that ‘competence’ and ‘acumen’ are two very different things. A student’s legal acumen can be judged using a test, whereas one's ‘competence’ as an advocate can only be judged after intensive exposure and equal opportunities to all, therefore making it an impossible metric to set. Coming to legal acumen, the need for a further assessment after long intensive study is a mockery of the Indian legal education system. Instead of setting roadblocks to legal practice in the name of ‘competence’, the Bar Council of India (BCI) must make attempts to refine Indian legal education.

Ever since its introduction, the AIBE has stood out as a controversial and divisive component. First conducted in 2011, the examination was conceived with the intention of ensuring competence among law graduates prior to their practice. However, the story of its execution and real-time impact has been far from ideal. AIBE is conducted after the candidate has completed his degree in law which is either five years or three years if law is done after graduation. To add to that, there is no distance learning option for law on the ground that legal education can only be taught in classrooms and can’t be learnt by self-study, hampering accessibility.

AIBE brings with it more challenges than just these. After having invested five or six years for a law degree, students are still at a crossroads and are required to deposit an additional fee for appearing in the examination. Many law graduates with humble backgrounds can’t afford to pay so much fees. Recently, the Madras High Court dismissed a plea seeking to reduce the application fee for the AIBE which is conducted by the BCI. The decision was made by Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice GR Swaminathan. The AIBE imposes additional costs such as registration fees, study materials and potential expenses related to repeated attempts at the examination. Not only does the exam delay a graduate's entry into the legal profession, but it also further burdens them with added financial stress. 

Though the AIBE has always been dealing with the controversies, the recent jibe on the low standard of the examination was brought up in A Mohandoss v. Registrar General (renamed as "In Re: Strengthening of the Institution of Bar Associations) on July 16. The Supreme Court's Justice Surya Kant criticised the “low standard” of the AIBE. Ironically, this observation has come in the background of the fact that in the year 2023, more than 50% of candidates who appeared for the AIBE failed to pass the same.  Hence, it can be derived that in its present form, the AIBE alone has no potential to solve the Supreme Court’s concerns over "quality lawyers”. If the AIBE’s standards remain unsatisfactory despite such a high failure rate of law graduates, there is a need to reconsider the exam’s role. 

If the goal is to improve the quality of lawyers, a more nuanced approach is needed rather than simply raising the bar of the AIBE to match the examinations used in other countries. The solution lies in a multi-dimensional approach. Legal education should be refined to focus on practical skills and problem-solving approaches rather than memorising certain sections of law. A lawyer’s competence is determined by a sum of skills such as drafting, ability to use technology, inter-personal relations, argumentation and hard work. This can be ensured only by re-visiting the syllabus of law and adding new topics dealing with technology, emotional intelligence and management etc.

For a better understanding of legal procedure in India, students must have exposure to the real-time cause and effect of the study. For instance, they must be encouraged to visit prisons, where they can assist the inmates and the legally oblivious in filing appeals, getting certified copies of orders, assisting legal aid counsel etc. The selection of teachers should also be transparent and guided by the requirements of the present time. It is imperative to make the study of law more fitting to changing times, with greater emphasis on a more practical and technological approach, coupled with the addition of newer subjects which are relevant and have a more holistic approach to employment.

One can draw a parallel between the legal profession and chartered accountancy, where the latter follows an inverted pyramid approach with self-study holding the larger bracket, further checked by a fool-proof examination system. Yet formal training, like an articleship, is one of the integral qualifying factors. The BCI and state bar councils can study these approaches and introduce the same in legal education.

However, one can’t be ignorant of the fact that India as a nation still suffers from rampant poverty and unemployment, which drive people into choosing professions out of need and not passion. The lack of diverse options and the further lack of awareness of existing career options is something that pushes people into boxes To address the issue, one needs to first understand and recognise that though basic education can be for all, professional education isn’t, and the Indian mindset of “acquiring a degree” must modify itself into “acquiring a skill”. A skill can be that of a professional carpenter or an advocate, depending upon the demand of the same in the market. This modification can only come when there's less time invested in filtering out the “unfit” and instead time is invested in instilling within the people a sense of dignity for labour so that pride can be generated from being both an advocate and a carpenter. 

To conclude, creating a barricade and filtering out students after completion of formal education is a waste of time, money and resources. This filter needs to be put right at the inception; only those should study law who are capable of becoming good lawyers. Further filtering should be at the stage of passing the law exam. Only those who are capable of practicing law should pass the law exam. As I said, the aim ultimately should be to produce quality lawyers and not to exclude the majority by a three-hour objective and multiple-choice exam.

Jyotika Kalra is an Advocate-on-Record practicing before the Supreme Court of India.