Why didn't you hold qualifying exam for Indians with foreign law degrees before AIBE? Delhi High Court asks BCI

The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned the Bar Council of India (BCI) over the scheduling of the qualifying exam for law graduates from foreign universities seeking to practice in India and the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) [Saanil Patnayak v. Bar Council of India & Anr.]

The petitioner before the Court is a law graduate from Brunel University of London and has completed a bridge course from the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), Goa. 

He is challenging BCI's requirement mandating Indian nationals who have a foreign law degree with a bridge course to take a qualifying exam conducted by the BCI and then take the AIBE in order to practice law in India. 

Justice Sachin Datta pinned the responsibility on the BCI regarding the issue raised.  

“He is a young advocate sitting idle at home, he concluded his bridge course several months ago. You have created this problem; you only find a solution. You should have conducted the qualifying exam before then, this will waste a year. Why did you not schedule the qualifying exam before? His chance to appear in AIBE will be after one year now," the Court remarked.

The Court directed the BCI counsel to take instructions on whether the qualifying exam can be scheduled before the AIBE exam. 

The matter will be heard tomorrow. 

Counsel for the law graduate sought court directions to allow him to appear for AIBE without first having to give the qualifying exam. 

The BCI's lawyer opposed the petition and stated,

“AIBE is for candidates enrolled as an advocate in India."

The Court today questioned the BCI for not conducting the qualifying exam before the AIBE in order to enable law graduates holding degrees from foreign universities to take the AIBE exam. 

“You should have timed it accordingly. Why don’t you schedule it in a way that it takes minimal amount of time?” the Court asked.

It is stated in the petition that the BCI introduced the bridge course for foreign law degree holders in order to bridge the gap between foreign and Indian curriculum. However, they are further required to appear for a qualifying examination before being permitted to attempt the AIBE.

“This course was introduced by the BCI itself to cure the difference in duration and structure between Indian and foreign law degrees. Yet, even after compelling students to spend two additional years in this BCI mandated programme, the BCI insists that they must sit for a further Qualifying Examination before being permitted to attempt the AIBE. This insistence destroys the very logic of the Bridge Course,” the petition states.

The petition raises the question whether BCI can mandate both a bridge course and a qualifying examination and whether such duplication renders the former futile. 

It sought court directions to the BCI to declare AIBE as the common qualifying examination for both Indian nationals having foreign law degrees who have completed their bridge course, as well as those with LL.B. degrees from Indian universities.

This question has been previously considered by the Delhi High Court in Mehak Oberoi vs Bar Council of India & Ors.

The Karnataka High Court has also dealt with this question. The Court today was informed that a challenge against this decision is pending before a Division Bench.

Advocates P B Sashaankh, Haresh Nair, Vardaan Wanchoo and Ritwik Mohapatra appeared for the law graduate.

Advocate Preet Pal Singh appeared for the BCI.

[Read live coverage]