INTRODUCTION
The recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Saanil Patnayak v. Bar Council of India, W.P.(C) No. 1132/2025 is undeniably a reaffirmation of the regulatory authority of the Bar Council of India (BCI) in setting standards for professional entry. The Supreme Court on 28 November 2025 refused to entertain a writ petition challenging Bar Council of India’s requirement of an additional qualifying exam for Indian nationals holding foreign law degrees, despite completion of the prescribed bridge course.
BACKGROUND
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order of dismissing the writ petition. The origin of the case could be traced briefly to the petitioner who is a 25-year old Indian citizen holding a foreign LL.B. degree whose humble pleadings included the point that despite completing the Indian equivalent Bridge Course in a Goa University as prescribed by BCI in a 2016 notification, and passing its formal exam, he was being compelled to undergo an additional “qualifying examination” to be eligible for sitting in the AIBE and getting enrolled as an advocate in India.
Initially, he had approached the Delhi High Court seeking exemption from the qualifying examination. Apparently, the BCI was given time to take instructions on whether the qualifying exam could be scheduled before the AIBE (scheduled for 30 November 2025 ). The BCI however came out with a schedule for the qualifying exam from 15-20 December 2025. It told the High Court that candidates who would be able to clear the qualifying exam would be eligible to obtain provisional registration with the State Bar Council and have 2 years’ time to clear the AIBE. It was further informed that the next AIBE would be held in June, 2026, and meanwhile, the petitioner and other similarly placed candidates could continue practice.
Thereafter, on 14 November 2025, the High Court dismissed the petitioner’s case as withdrawn, with liberty to raise any remaining grievances. It is after this the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court.
KEY POINTS
- The petitioner contended that there existed conflicting decisions of the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court on the legality of imposition of the additional qualifying exam, leading to uncertainty in the matter of enrolment of advocates. While the Karnataka High Court, in Karan Dhananjaya v. Bar Council of India, W.P.(C) No. 29996 of 2024 held that no additional qualifying exam is required for candidates who have undergone the bridge course and completed its exam, the Delhi High Court, in Mehak Oberoi v. Bar Council of India, W.P.(C) No. 16445 of 2024 upheld the requirement of an additional qualifying exam even after completion of the bridge course.
- Further it was submitted that the impugned requirement led to unequal treatment of persons belonging to the same class, that is, Indian citizens who have completed foreign LL.B. and the Bar Council-mandated bridge course. It was contended that similarly placed candidates are being allowed enrolment in certain jurisdictions, while others are being subjected to additional requirements without any rational basis.
- The Bench sought clarity regarding the proceedings before the Delhi High Court. The BCI informed the Court that although the petitioner initially filed a challenge there, he subsequently withdrew it after receiving the BCI’s assurance that provisional enrolment would be granted to candidates who clear the qualifying exam, allowing them to commence legal practice until they attempt the AIBE.
- Though the proceedings before the High Court were with regard to scheduling and overlap between the two exams, the instant petition before the Supreme Court challenged the validity of the qualifying examination itself. However, the Supreme Court declined to intervene, owing to the petitioner’s earlier approach to the High Court and the subsequent withdrawal of his plea, The Bench noted that the petitioner “got relief from the High Court” and withdrew his case. Though the petitioner’s counsel refuted the same, highlighting that the challenge was to the interim qualifying exam, not AIBE, the Court was not inclined to intervene.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme Court upon hearing the counsel held that it was not inclined to entertain the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications if any shall stand disposed of.
CONCLUSION
It could be concluded that the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere with the BCI’s regulatory framework with regard to the qualifying exam reiterates the autonomy that BCI holds in prescribing the eligibility criteria. However, when there are conflicting views with regard to the qualifying exam, it is important on the part of the Supreme Court to clarify on the matter.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY : AMYUKTA RAJAGOPAL
