Pre-enrolment All India Bar Examination would be most appropriate: Attorney General KK Venugopal to Supreme Court

Attorney General (AG) for India KK Venugopal argued before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday that conducting the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) prior to enrolment would the most appropriate course of action [Anuj Aggarwal v. Union of India]..This submission was supported by Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan before a five-judge Bench comprising Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari.“The Act as it now stands permits rules to be framed for pre-enrolment exam. For post-enrolment exams, an amendment needs to be made, that vanishes with pre-enrolment exam”, the senior counsel informed the Court..On the Court’s query as to the effect this approach would have on the judgment in the case of V Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, Viswanathan explained that the decision in the case was erroneous.The pre-enrolment training to entrants in the legal profession introduced by the Bar Council of India (BCI) was subject to challenge in this case. The Court had struck down the requirement for such training while observing,"These rules show that subject to the conditions laid down in these rules an enrolled advocate can practise as a full-fledged advocate. His right once granted cannot be restricted qua his acting in the Court when remaining enrolled as an advocate on the State roll. It must, therefore, be held that Section 49(1) (ah) cannot sustain the impugned rules.".During the course of the hearing, Justice Kaul also recommended that the difficulty level of the AIBE should be determined based on the number of enrolled advocates required in the country.The judge underscored that the exam set the minimum standard required before one could be permitted to enrol and practice. Therefore, it should be of adequate quality to determine the competence to practice.“How many lawyers do you need in the system? Ideally if work is reasonably done, how many lawyers are needed? Is it required to have such a lenient exam?” he asked.He suggested that the BCI carry out an analysis in this regard..When issues regarding required training of young lawyers came up, Viswanathan urged the Court to consider incentivising training young lawyers. This could be set as one of the determining factors for lawyers to be considered for designation as seniors or for elevation to the bench, he suggested..The hearing will continue tomorrow..The Constitution Bench is hearing petitions challenging the validity of Rules 9 to 11 of the BCI Rules for being violative of Section 16, 24 and 30 of the Advocates Act and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution..Rule 9 makes passing the AIBE a mandatory pre-condition for every advocate to practice. Rule 10 enables the BCI to conduct the exam and Rule 11 deals with the procedure for the issuance of a certificate to practice. .The questions referred for the Bench’s consideration are:(1) Whether Pre-enrolment 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 V. Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 176)] requires reconsideration?(2) Whether a pre-enrolment 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-enrolment examination can be validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India in terms of Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961?.Advocate Kartik Seth appeared for the petitioners. .[Read our live-coverage of today's hearing here]