The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a plea challenging the Bar Council of India’s requirement of an additional qualifying exam for Indian nationals with foreign law degrees, even after completion of the bridge course.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging the Bar Council of India (BCI) rule requiring an additional qualifying examination for Indian citizens holding foreign law degrees.
The decision comes despite the petitioner having completed the mandatory Bridge Course, raising important questions about the enrolment process for foreign-educated law graduates in India.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a 25-year-old Indian citizen with a foreign LL.B. degree, argued that he had already fulfilled the equivalence requirement by completing the Bridge Course from Goa University.
However, under the current BCI regulations, candidates are still required to clear an additional qualifying examination before becoming eligible for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and enrolment as an advocate.
Delhi High Court Proceedings
The petitioner initially approached the Delhi High Court seeking exemption from the additional qualifying examination.
- The Court sought clarification from BCI regarding the exam schedule
- BCI informed that the qualifying exam would be held between December 15–20
- The AIBE was scheduled earlier on November 30
BCI further stated:
- Successful candidates would receive provisional enrolment
- They would get two years to clear the AIBE
- The next AIBE is expected in June 2026
- Candidates could continue practicing in the interim
On November 14, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to raise related legal issues later.
Conflicting High Court Judgments
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner highlighted conflicting rulings from different High Courts:
- Karnataka High Court: Held that no additional qualifying exam is required after completion of the bridge course
- Delhi High Court: Upheld the requirement of an additional qualifying exam
This inconsistency, according to the petitioner, led to unequal treatment of candidates across jurisdictions.
“Candidates with identical qualifications are treated differently depending on the State, creating unfair barriers in enrolment,” the petitioner argued.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta declined to interfere in the matter.
- The Court noted that the petitioner had earlier approached the Delhi High Court
- Relief had already been partially addressed before withdrawal of the petition
- The Court was not inclined to re-examine the issue
As a result, the writ petition W.P.(C) No. 1132/2025 – Saanil Patnayak vs. Bar Council of India was dismissed.
Key Highlights
- Supreme Court refuses to interfere in BCI qualifying exam rule
- Bridge course alone not sufficient for enrolment
- Conflicting High Court rulings remain unresolved
- BCI continues to mandate additional qualifying exam
- Foreign law graduates face regulatory uncertainty
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India’s refusal to entertain the plea leaves the existing BCI framework intact, requiring foreign-educated law graduates to clear an additional qualifying examination.
The case also highlights ongoing inconsistencies in judicial interpretation across High Courts, raising concerns about uniformity and fairness in the enrolment process.
Until further clarity emerges, candidates with foreign law degrees must comply with the current regulatory requirements set by the Bar Council of India.
Also Read
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against ₹3,500 AIBE Fee Charged by BCI
