The Bar Council of India informed the Delhi High Court that AIBE XXI will be held in June 2026, while the qualifying exam for Indian nationals with foreign law degrees is scheduled for December this year. The Court noted that such graduates may begin provisional practice for two years before clearing AIBE.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that the next All India Bar Examination (AIBE) will be held in June 2026.
The BCI also informed the Court that the qualifying exam for Indian students who have completed their law degree from a foreign university will take place in December this year.
After this update, the Delhi High Court closed the petition filed by a law graduate from a foreign university who wanted permission to practice law in India.
In the previous hearing, the Court had asked BCI’s counsel to confirm whether the qualifying exam could be held before the AIBE, so that students like the petitioner do not lose a year.
Based on the instructions received, the BCI informed Justice Sachin Datta that the qualifying exam will be conducted between December 15 and 20, 2025, and the next bi-annual AIBE will take place in June 2026.
The Court recorded the following statement from the BCI:
“It is further informed that upon provisional registration with the State Bar Council, the petitioner and the other similarly situated students/persons will have a period of 2 years to clear AIBE. In the intervening period, they would not be precluded from commencing their legal practice.”
The petitioner is a law graduate from Brunel University of London who completed a bridge course from the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), Goa.
He challenged the BCI rule that requires Indian citizens with foreign law degrees to first complete the bridge course, then appear for a BCI qualifying exam, and only after qualifying that exam, appear for the AIBE to get their license to practise.
During an earlier hearing, the Court expressed concern about the delay and told the counsel for BCI:
“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.”
The petitioner’s counsel requested the Court to allow him to appear for AIBE XX, scheduled on November 30, 2025, without taking the qualifying exam first. BCI’s lawyer opposed this and said:
“AIBE is for candidates enrolled as an advocate in India.”
The Court had also asked the BCI why the qualifying exam was scheduled after the AIBE, causing unnecessary delay for foreign law graduates.
ALSO READ: AIBE | How To Crack All India Bar Examination In Your 1st Attempt !
The Court asked the BCI:
“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, it was argued that the BCI introduced the bridge course to remove the academic differences between foreign and Indian law degrees.
Despite completing this bridge course, students still have to take another qualifying exam, which according to the petitioner, makes the purpose of the bridge course meaningless.
The petition stated:
“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 petition raised an important legal question—whether BCI can ask students to undergo both a bridge course and a qualifying exam, and whether such duplication defeats the purpose of the bridge course.
The petitioner wanted the Court to declare that the AIBE should be treated as a common qualifying exam for everyone, including Indian law graduates and Indian students with foreign law degrees who have already completed the bridge course.
This issue has previously been examined by the Delhi High Court in Mehak Oberoi vs Bar Council of India & Ors. The Karnataka High Court has also heard similar challenges, and the Delhi High Court was informed that an appeal against that judgment is pending before a Division Bench.
ALSO READ: AIBE: Supreme Court Seeks BCI Response on PIL Challenging Rs.3,500 Exam Fee
Advocates PB Sashaank, Haresh Nair, Vardaan Wanchoo, Rahul Reddy and Ritwik Mohapatra appeared for the petitioner.
Advocates Preetpal Singh, Tanupreet Kaur and Medha Navami represented the BCI. Advocates T Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Yamini, Abhijit Chakravarty, Bhanu Gulati, Sourabh and Vedant Sood represented the Bar Council of Delhi.
Case Title:
Saanil Patnayak v. Bar Council of India & Anr.
Read Order:
