The Delhi High Court questioned the Bar Council of India for not conducting the qualifying exam for Indian law graduates with foreign degrees before the AIBE, calling the delay unfair. Justice Sachin Datta said, “You have created this problem; you only find a solution.”
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned the Bar Council of India (BCI) for not scheduling the qualifying examination for Indian law graduates with foreign degrees before the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
The issue arose in the case of the petitioner, a law graduate from Brunel University of London, who challenged the BCI’s rules.
The petitioner has completed a bridge course from the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), Goa.
ALSO READ: BREAKING: Foreign Law Firms Can Now Operate in India Under New BCI Rules!
However, according to the BCI, Indian nationals who have earned their law degrees abroad must first complete a bridge course, then appear for a qualifying examination conducted by the BCI, and only after passing that exam can they take the AIBE to become eligible to practice law in India.
During the hearing, Justice Sachin Datta expressed strong concern over the delay and questioned the BCI’s scheduling of the qualifying exam. The judge observed that the delay was unfair to young lawyers waiting to start their careers.
The Court remarked,
“He is a young advocate sitting idle at home, he concluded his bridge course several months ago. You have created this problem; you only find a solution. You should have conducted the qualifying exam before then, this will waste a year. Why did you not schedule the qualifying exam before? His chance to appear in AIBE will be after one year now,”
Justice Datta further directed the BCI’s counsel to seek instructions from the Council on whether the qualifying exam could be held before the upcoming AIBE exam. The Court also listed the matter for hearing the next day.
The petitioner’s counsel urged the Court to permit him to take the AIBE directly, without waiting to clear the qualifying examination first. However, the lawyer representing the BCI opposed this request.
The BCI’s counsel stated,
“AIBE is for candidates enrolled as an advocate in India,”
The Court again pressed the BCI to explain why the qualifying exam was not conducted before the AIBE. The judge pointed out that the delay in scheduling was unnecessarily affecting candidates who had already completed the required bridge course.
The Court asked,
“You should have timed it accordingly. Why don’t you schedule it in a way that it takes minimal amount of time?”
In the petition, the law graduate argued that the BCI’s decision to conduct both a bridge course and a separate qualifying exam is unreasonable. The bridge course was introduced by the BCI to help students with foreign law degrees understand Indian legal principles and fill any gaps in the curriculum.
However, after completing this course, candidates are still being asked to appear for another qualifying test, which the petitioner believes defeats the purpose of the bridge course itself.
The petition states,
“This course was introduced by the BCI itself to cure the difference in duration and structure between Indian and foreign law degrees. Yet, even after compelling students to spend two additional years in this BCI mandated programme, the BCI insists that they must sit for a further Qualifying Examination before being permitted to attempt the AIBE. This insistence destroys the very logic of the Bridge Course,”
The main question raised in the case is whether the BCI has the authority to make both the bridge course and the qualifying exam mandatory for Indian nationals with foreign law degrees, and whether having both requirements makes the bridge course unnecessary.
The petitioner requested that the Court direct the BCI to treat the AIBE as a common qualifying examination for all candidates — both those with Indian LL.B. degrees and those who hold foreign law degrees after completing the bridge course.
ALSO READ: Foreign Law Firm Alliances Under Scrutiny: BCI Issues Notice
It was also pointed out during the hearing that similar questions had earlier been discussed by the Delhi High Court in Mehak Oberoi vs. Bar Council of India & Ors., and that the Karnataka High Court had also dealt with the same issue.
The Court was informed that an appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s decision is currently pending before a Division Bench.
Advocates P B Sashaankh, Haresh Nair, Vardaan Wanchoo, and Ritwik Mohapatra appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Advocate Preet Pal Singh represented the Bar Council of India.
Case Title:
Saanil Patnayak v. Bar Council of India & Anr.
Read More Reports On Foreign Law
