Supreme Court Rejects Foreign LL.B. Holder's Plea Against BCI's Additional Qualifying Exam Condition Despite Bridge Course Completion

The Supreme Court today 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.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Advocates PB Sashaankh and Vipin Nair for the petitioner and Advocate Radhika Gautam for the BCI.

The petitioner, a 25-year old Indian citizen holding a foreign LL.B. degree, pled 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 November 30). The BCI however came out with a schedule for the qualifying exam from 15-20 December. 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.

On November 14, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's case as withdrawn, with liberty to raise any "remaining grievances" (such as, validity of Rule 37 of Rules of Legal Education). Thereafter, he moved the Supreme Court.

In his submissions before the Supreme Court, he claimed that there exist 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, 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, upheld the requirement of an additional qualifying exam even after completion of the bridge course.

He argued that the impugned requirement led to unequal treatment of persons belonging to 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 requirement without any rational basis.

"Candidates with the same qualifications and the same examination are eligible for enrolment in Karnataka but are barred from even attempting the AIBE elsewhere", the plea stated.

Today, the plea was dismissed, noting that the petitioner "got relief from the High Court" and withdrew his case. The petitioner's counsel refuted the same, highlighting that the challenge was to the interim qualifying exam, not AIBE. But the bench was not inclined.

Case Title: SAANIL PATNAYAK Versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 1132/2025 

Click Here To Read/Download Order