Ensuring legal standards: The crucial role of AIBE

A recent article criticised the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), arguing that it is a flawed measure of legal competence and undermines the Indian legal education system. However, this perspective overlooks several critical aspects and fails to recognsze the essential role the AIBE plays in maintaining professional standards within the legal profession.

The importance of rigorous testing to ensure the competence of future advocates was highlighted by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in a recent courtroom exchange, emphasising the need to uphold high standards in the legal field.

The AIBE is not simply an additional hurdle for law graduates, it is a necessary assessment designed to ensure that those entering the legal profession have a fundamental level of practical understanding and competence. This approach is not unique to India. Many other countries have similar exams that act as crucial gatekeepers, ensuring that only competent individuals are allowed to practice law.

For example, in the United States, each state administers its own bar examination, which law graduates must pass to practice law. These exams include rigorous components such as the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) and state-specific tests that assess both legal knowledge and practical skills. Similarly, the United Kingdom has introduced the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) to standardise the competence of solicitors. Comparable assessments exist in Canada, Australia, Japan and Germany, where aspiring lawyers must demonstrate both theoretical knowledge and practical skills before they can begin practicing law.

These exams are intentionally challenging, designed to filter out those who, despite holding a degree, may not possess the requisite skills or knowledge to competently represent clients in court. This is precisely why the AIBE is so crucial in India - it serves to protect the public by ensuring that only those truly prepared for the responsibilities of an advocate are permitted to practice.

The article in question attempts to distinguish between legal acumen and competence, suggesting that competence can only be judged through practice. However, this view is flawed. Legal acumen is a fundamental part of overall competence and must be demonstrated before one can be entrusted with the duties of an advocate. The AIBE is specifically designed to test this basic level of acumen, ensuring that candidates have a solid grasp of legal principles before they step into the courtroom.

The process of establishing a centre of law ollege in India involves multiple layers of oversight, each playing a crucial role in maintaining the quality of legal education. The first step is obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the state government’s Ministry of Education, which ensures that the proposed institution meets initial criteria. The second step involves the grant of affiliation by the respective university, following a thorough inspection of the physical and academic infrastructure. Only after these steps does the Bar Council of India (BCI) consider whether to approve the affiliation, focusing on whether the institution meets the standards necessary to produce competent legal professionals.

Each of these bodies has an essential role in regulating legal education, but the first two steps - NOC and university affiliation - are particularly critical. These steps must involve meticulous scrutiny to prevent the mushrooming of sub-standard centers of legal education (CLEs) that could undermine the quality of legal graduates entering the profession. By addressing potential issues early on, the system can ensure that only institutions capable of providing high-quality legal education are allowed to operate, supporting the effectiveness of the AIBE as a final checkpoint.

The CJI's recent response to a petition seeking to lower the passing marks for the AIBE, encapsulated in the phrase "Padho Bhai," highlights the expectation that aspiring lawyers must meet rigorous standards through their own efforts. Lowering the passing marks would undermine the very purpose of the examination, which is to ensure that only those with the necessary knowledge and skills are admitted to the legal profession.

While the article advocates for reforms in legal education, with a focus on practical skills and technological competence, it is important to recognise the logistical and infrastructural challenges of overhauling the entire legal education system in a country as large and diverse as India. Although improvements in legal education are necessary, they do not eliminate the need for a standardised post-graduation assessment like the AIBE.

Furthermore, university exams can vary significantly in rigour and consistency depending on the institution. This variation makes a uniform regulatory exam essential to ensure that all law graduates meet a baseline level of competence, regardless of where they obtained their degree.

The AIBE plays a critical role in upholding the integrity of the legal profession in India. It ensures that only those with the necessary skills and knowledge are allowed to practice law, thereby protecting the public and maintaining professional standards. The Bonnie Foi decision, a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court, upheld the validity of the AIBE, reinforcing the importance of such measures. Any critique of the AIBE must consider the complex realities of legal education and regulation in India and must propose practical alternatives if it seeks to suggest changes. The expectation that aspiring lawyers should meet these rigorous standards is not unreasonable. It reflects the serious responsibilities that come with being an advocate. The AIBE is not just an exam; it represents a commitment to maintaining the quality and integrity of legal practice in India.

Prof Shaiwal Satyarthi is a Professor of Law at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.