Results Of BCI’s Qualifying Exam For Indian Nationals Holding Foreign Degrees Published; Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea

The Supreme Court today disposed of a plea which had asked to direct the Bar Council of India (BCI) to declare the result of the 18th Bar Council of India Qualifying Examination for Indian nationals holding Foreign Law Degrees (INHFLD). The examination was conducted from December 19 -24, 2022 at the BCI office.

A vacation bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Rakesh Bindal disposed of the plea noting that results of the exam had already been published by BCI after the previous hearing.

“When the matter is called on today, learned counsel for the petitioner apprises this Court that the result of the 18th Bar Council of Indian Qualifying Examination for Indian Nationals Holding Foreign Law Degrees has already been published on 07.06.2023. In that view of the matter, the cause of action of the present petition does not survive. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.”

The matter was earlier taken up on June 7. The petitioner Anchita Nayyar is a candidate who appeared for the 18th INHFLD exam. As per the petition, even after a lapse of more than five months, the result of more than 75 candidates has yet not been declared. Through the petition, the petitioner has argued that her inability to practice as an Advocate is adversely affecting her livelihood. She has further stated that the BCI had personally assured that the results would be released within a week, but they have still not been declared.

As per the petition, despite numerous attempts including phone calls, emails, and physical visits, the BCI has failed to provide any assistance or respond to the concerns of the petitioner. Upon getting no response from the BCI, as per the petition–

“The petitioner along with several other candidates sought the assistance of Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who subsequently penned an open letter to the chairman of the BCI urging for the release of the results. However, despite the aforementioned letter being sent, a considerable period has elapsed without any response from the BCI".

It was argued that the petitioner's fundamental right of the ability to earn a livelihood under Article 21 and the right to engage in a profession under Article 19(1)(g) has been violated as despite being qualified to practise, due to the technical prerequisites, she is unable to enrol as an Advocate under the State Bar Council.

Case Title: Anchita Nayyar vs BCI | WP [C] No. 619/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order