A Supreme Court constitution bench on Friday affirmed the legal validity of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and the pre-enrolment training for lawyers before granting them licence to practice.
A five-judge bench, headed by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) was authorised under the law to conduct the exam – both pre-enrolment as well as post-enrolment, and provide for any other mechanism suitable for the legal profession.
The constitution bench, which also included justices Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari, delivered the ruling five days after the AIBE-XVII exam was conducted across 53 cities and 261 centres.
According to a statement issued by the BCI, 173000 advocates registered for the AIBE, and 98.7% of them appeared in the examination.
The court also directed that candidates pursuing the final semester of the LLB will henceforth be allowed to sit for the AIBE and their results shall be subject to their clearing the law exam.
Presently, candidates must register as advocates with their respective state bar councils to become eligible to appear for the exam.
{{/usCountry}}Presently, candidates must register as advocates with their respective state bar councils to become eligible to appear for the exam.
{{/usCountry}}AIBE was introduced in 2010. Law graduates who have completed a 3-year LLB or 5-year LLB course and successfully registered with their state councils after 2010 must appear for this exam to practice law.
Upon clearing the exam, the BCI awards the Certificate of Practice to advocates, which allows them to practice law.
In March 2016, a three-judge bench observed that the right to practice law was not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right for LLB degree holders. The bench noted that an examination that grants licenses to advocates may negate this right as it referred the challenge to the constitution bench.
The issues framed by the three-judge bench included: Can the BCI prescribe a pre-enrollment exam as a condition precedent for enrollment; can the BCI prescribe pre-enrollment training in terms of its training rules issued in 1995 and if a pre-enrollment exam is not permitted, can BCI prescribe a post-enrollment exam in alignment with Section 49 (1) (ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961?
Senior advocate KV Vishwanathan, who appeared as amicus curiae to assist the court, argued while BCI may not be the authority to admit a candidate into the Bar, the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers it to lay down policies for admittance.
Vishwanathan added the primary objective of BCI is to improve the Bar and must be given rule-making power to fulfil this objective.
Advocate Karthik Seth, who appeared for a petitioner, submitted that AIBE is discriminatory as candidates who graduated before the examination was introduced and enrolled after its introduction did not need to take it.
While agreeing that AIBE is necessary, Seth argued that a pre-enrollment examination would be more appropriate, since it will save time for candidates who want to take up employment immediately after graduation. He submitted BCI’s fee of ₹3,500 for AIBE is exorbitant.