BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds validity of All India Bar Examination; BCI to decide whether it should be held pre or post-enrolment

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the validity of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) that law graduates are required to take to be allowed to practice before courts [Bar Council of India v Bonnie Foi Law College]..A Constitution Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari held that the powers of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to conduct the exam were adequate, adding, "We are, thus, of the view that while considering the questions referred to us, the only conclusion which can be laid is that the interdict placed by the judgment of this Court in V. Sudeer on the powers of the Bar Council of India cannot be sustained and we cannot hold that V. Sudeer lays down the correct position of law.".On whether the AIBE should be held pre or post-enrolment, the Court said,"The effect of the view expressed by us would be that it has to be left to the Bar Council of India as to at what stage the All India Bar Examination has to be held – pre or post."The bench noted that while there are consequences, especially in respect of the interregnum period, which would arise in holding the AIBE in either scenario, it was not for the Supreme Court to delve into them."But it would be appropriate to leave it to the Bar Council of India to look to the niceties of both situations," the judgment stated. .The Court accepted the suggestion of the Amicus Curiae to the effect that students who are eligible to pursue the final semester of law school, could be allowed to take the AIBE."We are inclined to accept the suggestion from the learned Amicus that students who have cleared all examinations to be eligible to pursue the final semester of the final year course of law, on production of proof of the same, could be allowed to take the All India Bar Examination."However, it was clarified that the result of the AIBE would be subject to the person passing all the components required under the course of study at their university. .The Bench also noted that there was, more often that not, a hiatus period between passing a law university exam and date of enrolment. During this time, the law graduate would be able to do all tasks allied to the legal profession other than the function of acting or pleading before courts, it said. .It also called for an appropriate rule to be framed laying down that an enrolled advocate who takes up employment in a non-legal context for a substantial period would be deemed to be a new enrolee, and would be required to take AIBE again."We believe that the requirements of an active legal practice and that of an unconnected job are different. Even if a person has a law degree or enrolment, it does not mean that his ability to assist the court would continue with him if there are long hiatus period of time in some unconnected job. He would have to hone and test his skills afresh," the Court said..Further, the Bench called for uniformity in the charging of fee for the exam, since different State Bar Councils were charging different amounts..The Supreme Court had on September 28 reserved its judgment in the batch of pleas challenging the validity of AIBE.The Court examined the validity of Rules 9 to 11 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules for being violative of Sections 16, 24 and 30 of the Advocates Act, as well as Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.Rule 9 makes passing the AIBE mandatory for every advocate to practice. Rule 10 enables the BCI to conduct the exam, and Rule 11 deals with the procedure for issuance of certificate of practice..The questions referred for the Bench’s consideration were:(1) Whether Pre-enrolment training in terms of Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 framed under Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 could be validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India and if so whether the decision of this Court in V. Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 176)] requires reconsideration?(2) Whether a pre-enrolment examination can be prescribed by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961?(3) In case questions Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative whether a post-enrolment examination can be validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India in terms of Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961?.During the hearings, Justice Kaul had orally indicated that the Bench would aim to fine-tune the current scheme of the AIBE. He had also recommended that the difficulty level of the AIBE should be determined based on the number of enrolled advocates required in the country.The judge had underscored that since the exam set the minimum standard required, it should be of adequate quality to determine the competence to practice. He had even suggested that the BCI carry out an analysis in this regard.Then Attorney General (AG) for India KK Venugopal had argued that conducting the AIBE prior to enrolment would be more appropriate than having it after enrolment..Apart from Venugopal, Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan appeared in the matter as Amicus Curiae. BCI was represented by its Chairperson and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra. Advocates Kartik Seth and VK Biju appeared for the petitioners..[Read Judgment]