Validity Of AIBE : Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Consider BCI's Powers To Prescribe Post-Enrolment Exam On September 27

The 5-Judge Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari requested Senior Advocate, Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan to assist the Bench in addition to the Amicus Curiae, Attorney General, Mr. K.K. Venugopal.

Justice Kaul noted that in a petition titled Bar Council Of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar & Ors., assailing a judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which allowed persons with other employment, whether full time or part-time, to enrol as Advocates without resigning from their jobs, a Division Bench led by him has issued directions encouraging BCI to introspect on the present mechanism to conduct the bar examination, the quality of the said examination, the quality of legal education in the country and improve the system at the entry level. Considering that the order passed in the said matter would be of great significance in the present proceedings, the Bench had urged they be included in the compilation. Justice Kaul was also of the opinion that the Amicus Curiae appointed in Bar Council Of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar & Ors., Mr. Vishwanathan could provide valuable insights into various aspects of the present proceedings.

Advocate, Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad appearing on behalf of BCI narrated the genesis of the issue as it lies before the Constitution Bench. BCI had framed Bar Council Training Rules, 1995 and introduced pre-enrollment training. The same was challenged in Sudeer v. Bar Council of India & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 176. The Apex Court had struck it down holding pre-enrollment training to be beyond the competence of the Bar Council. Thereafter, in 2010, the All India Bar Examination was introduced by BCI, which was assailed before the Apex Court. From the said challenge emanates the following issues, which are required to be consideration by the Constitution Bench -

(1) Whether Pre-enrollment 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 Sudeer v. Bar Council of India & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 176)] requires reconsideration.

(2) Whether a pre-enrollment 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-enrollment examination can be validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India in terms of Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

[Case Status: BCI v. Bonnie FOI Law College And Ors. SLP(C) No. 22337/2008]

Click Here To Read/Download Order