Supreme Court rejects plea against BCI rule mandating qualifying exam for foreign law graduates

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the Bar Council of India (BCI)’s rule mandating a qualifying examination for Indian citizens with foreign law degrees even after they have completed the two-year bridge course prescribed by the BCI [Saanil Patnayak vs. Bar Council of India]. .The case reached the Court two days before the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) scheduled for November 30, with the petitioner seeking urgent permission to write the exam without having to clear the additional qualifying test.A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the plea after being informed that the petitioner had already approached the Delhi High Court seeking similar relief. .The Court was hearing a plea filed by a 25-year-old Indian law graduate from London's Brunel University. He had completed the BCI’s bridge course at the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), Goa. The petitioner argued that the qualifying examination had no statutory basis and unfairly duplicated the testing already done through the bridge course and the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). It was submitted that requiring a further qualifying exam was duplicative and contrary to the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which had held that no additional exam was needed after completion of the Bridge Course. He also highlighted that the Delhi High Court had taken the opposite view, resulting in two directly conflicting judgments for candidates with identical qualifications..During the hearing, the Bench asked about proceedings before the Delhi High Court in a connected challenge filed earlier this month. The BCI told the Court that the petitioner had earlier moved the Delhi High Court and later withdrawn his case after the BCI clarified that provisional enrolment would be granted to candidates who clear the qualifying exam, allowing them to begin practice pending their attempt at the AIBE. The BCI said this order of the Delhi High Court was not assailed before the Supreme Court on the first date of hearing of the present petition when the Court had issued notice and sought the BCI's response.Advocates Vipin Nair and PB Sashaankh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that an additional document containing the Delhi High Court order had been filed and that there was no attempt at concealment.Pertinently, the BCI had told the Delhi High Court that the AIBE is scheduled again on June 2026 while the qualifying exam is scheduled for December this year. So the possibility of foreign law graduates not being able to sit for the AIBE is negated, it was argued.It was after this assurance that the petitioner had withdrawn his case from the High Court, it was argued before the Supreme Court.While the challenge in the High Court primarily pertained to the timing of conduct of AIBE being in a way that clashed with the qualifying exam, the challenge in the Supreme Court dealt with the validity of the qualifying exam itself. .Ultimately, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had approached the Delhi High Court seeking similar relief and had withdrawn his petition subsequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea. The petitioner explained that pleas before the High Court and the Supreme Court dealt with separate, distinct issues. However, the Court remained unmoved. .Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.