The All India Bar Examination
Chapter Forty-Five
Syllabus topic 3, "Examination reforms"
Pages 160 to 163 of 543
In one line
Since 2010 an Indian law graduate must pass a national examination set by the Bar Council of India before practising, and it is the largest examination reform in Indian legal education because it is the first test of a law degree conducted by somebody other than the institution that granted it.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: the All India Bar Examination is conducted by the Bar Council of India under its rule making powers in section 49 of the Advocates Act 1961 as a condition of the right to practise; its validity was challenged on the ground that the right to practise conferred by section 30 could be restricted only by another provision of the Act and not by rules, and a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, decided on 10 February 2023, upheld the examination, left the choice between a pre-enrolment and a post-enrolment examination to the Bar Council, and held that V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India is no longer good law.
The problem it was created to solve
Until 2010 the only test of an Indian law graduate was the examination of the university that taught them. A college with no library, no full time faculty and no clinic issued a degree that opened the same profession as any other.
Chapter 180 shows why the regulator's other tools were weak. Approval is binary, its withdrawal harms enrolled students, and inspection reaches a fraction of institutions.
So the reform moved the test to the other end of the chain. Instead of trying to guarantee every college, examine every graduate. Whatever else it does, it makes the competence of entrants a public standard rather than a matter of institutional self-certification.
The litigation
The first attempt was struck down. In V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, (1999) 3 SCC 176, decided on 15 March 1999, law graduates challenged the Bar Council of India Training Rules 1995, as amended in 1998, which required an entrant to undergo training and pass an examination before enrolment. They said the rules were beyond the Council's powers under the Advocates Act and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court struck the rules down as beyond the Council's rule making power, holding that the scheme of the Act did not permit an additional pre-enrolment condition to be imposed by rules.
V. Sudeer governed for twenty-four years, and the All India Bar Examination introduced in 2010 was structured as a post-enrolment examination in the shadow of it.
Then a Constitution Bench reconsidered the whole question. In Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 130, decided on 10 February 2023, a long running matter about the recognition of a law college became the vehicle for a reference on whether the Bar Council may require a law graduate to pass an examination before being allowed to practise, and on whether V. Sudeer was correctly decided.
The All India Bar Examination
The Court held that V. Sudeer is not good law and set it aside, prospectively. It upheld the Bar Council of India's power to conduct the All India Bar Examination and left it to the Council to decide whether the examination is held before or after enrolment. It declined to fix the number of attempts a graduate may take. It accepted in principle that an advocate who takes non-legal employment for a substantial period may be required to take the examination again to regain the qualification. And it separately observed that the varying enrolment fees charged by different State Bar Councils need the Council's attention, so that the fee does not become oppressive at the threshold for young students joining the Bar.
One qualification the Court added expressly, and a candidate should reproduce it: setting aside V. Sudeer is in no manner an approval of a requirement of pre-enrolment training.
The fee point, decided the following year
The Court's observation about enrolment fees was taken up in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 558, decided on 30 July 2024. State Bar Councils were charging sums far above the fee section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act prescribes, under a variety of other names, as a condition of enrolling a law graduate.
The Court held that they cannot. State Bar Councils may not charge enrolment fees or miscellaneous fees beyond the amount section 24(1)(f) prescribes, and neither they nor the Bar Council of India may demand any payment other than that fee and stamp duty as a precondition of enrolment. Charging more violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The decision was given prospective effect, so past excess collections need not be refunded.
Why it belongs in this chapter. Access to the profession is the last stage of legal education, and a fee that excludes the first generation graduate narrows the pool of lawyers who will ever take a legal aid brief, which is the connection back to chapter 40.
The examination as a reform: merits
It is external. For the first time, the producer of the degree is not the only judge of it.
It produces information. Pass rates by institution are evidence about colleges that no inspection generates, and evidence is what the regulator of chapters 180 and 190 has always lacked.
It sets a floor. Whatever the college, a person entering the profession has demonstrated something on a common instrument.
The All India Bar Examination
It is uniform and reliable. An objective national examination is marked identically for everybody, which the university examinations are not.
And it changes what colleges teach, because a college whose graduates fail will hear about it.
The examination as a reform: demerits
It arrives too late to help the student. A graduate who discovers after three or five years and a great deal of money that their college did not teach them has no remedy against the college.
It is objective, so it inherits chapter 370's demerits: recognition rather than production, and no test of drafting, advocacy or judgment.
It regulates the graduate rather than the college, which is arguably the wrong target: the failure was the institution's.
It adds cost and delay at the poorest moment in a lawyer's life, which is exactly the concern Gaurav Kumar addressed on the fee side.
And its standard has been criticised as low, so that as a filter it may be catching very few.
A worked example
A graduate of a college with two full time teachers and no library sits the examination.
Under the pre-2010 position they were enrolled and could appear in any court the next week, and nothing had tested the degree.
Under the present position they must pass the examination. If they do, the profession has a floor. If they fail, they have discovered after five years what an inspection should have discovered before they enrolled.
And under Gaurav Kumar the State Bar Council may charge them only what section 24(1)(f) prescribes, plus stamp duty, so the threshold is at least not a financial one.
The honest conclusion for an answer. The examination is a real reform and it is aimed at the wrong end of the problem: it protects the public from the graduate rather than protecting the student from the college. Both are worth doing, and only one is being done.
Quick revision
The All India Bar Examination, conducted by the Bar Council of India since 2010 under section 49 of the Advocates Act 1961, as a condition of the right to practise.
V. Sudeer, (1999) 3 SCC 176 struck down the Council's pre-enrolment training rules as beyond its rule making power. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 130 (10 February 2023, Constitution Bench) held V. Sudeer to be no longer good law, upheld the examination, left the timing to the Council, declined to fix the attempts, accepted re-examination after a long non-legal absence, and flagged uneven enrolment fees. It expressly said this was no approval of pre-enrolment training.
Gaurav Kumar, 2024 INSC 558 (30 July 2024): nothing beyond section 24(1)(f) and stamp duty may be demanded at enrolment; charging more violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); prospective only.
The All India Bar Examination
Merits: external, produces information about colleges, sets a floor, uniform and reliable, and changes what colleges teach.
Demerits: too late to help the student, objective so it cannot test skill, regulates the graduate rather than the college, adds cost and delay, and may set a low standard.
Test yourself
1. What did V. Sudeer decide, and what is its status now? It struck down the Bar Council of India Training Rules 1995 as amended, which required pre-enrolment training and an examination, holding them beyond the Council's rule making power under the Advocates Act. It is no longer good law, having been set aside prospectively by a Constitution Bench in Bonnie Foi Law College on 10 February 2023.
2. State four things the Constitution Bench decided in Bonnie Foi Law College. That the Bar Council of India's power to conduct the All India Bar Examination is valid; that it is for the Council to decide whether the examination is held before or after enrolment; that the Court would not fix the number of attempts; and that an advocate returning after a substantial period in non-legal employment may be required to take the examination again. It also observed that varying enrolment fees need the Council's attention, and said expressly that setting aside V. Sudeer was no approval of pre-enrolment training.
3. What was decided in Gaurav Kumar, and why does it belong in a chapter on examination reform? That State Bar Councils may not charge enrolment or miscellaneous fees beyond section 24(1)(f) and stamp duty, and that charging more violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), with prospective effect. It belongs here because enrolment is the last stage of legal education, and a fee that excludes the first generation graduate narrows the pool of lawyers who will ever take a legal aid brief.
4. Give the strongest criticism of the examination as a reform. That it is aimed at the wrong end of the problem. It tests the graduate after three or five years and a great deal of money have been spent, when the failure was the institution's, and the student who discovers it then has no remedy against the college.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.