Foreign Law Graduates Must Mandatorily Clear Additional Qualifying Exam Despite 2-Year Bridge Course: Supreme Court [Read Order]
As per current law, a foreign law graduate who completed the BCI mandated bridge course cannot bypass the additional qualifying examination required for enrolment
The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the requirement of the Bar Council of India (BCI) that Indian citizens holding foreign law degrees must clear an additional qualifying examination even after completing the prescribed two-year bridge course, before becoming eligible for enrolment and the All India BarExamination (AIBE).
The ruling was delivered by the apex court against a petition filed by 25-year-old Saanil Patnayak, an Indian national who completed his LL.B. from Brunel University, London and thereafter undertook the bridge course at the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), Goa.
The petitioner argued that the BCI’s insistence on a separate qualifying examination had no statutory basis, asserting that he had already undergone two layers of academic scrutiny in the form of the bridge course assessment and the AIBE, and that a further test amounted to unjustified duplication.
It was submitted that the Karnataka High Court held in Karan Dhananjaya v. BCI (2024) that no additional exam was necessary once the bridge course was completed, while the Delhi High Court had taken a contrary view in Mehak Oberoi v. BCI (2024), resulting in conflicting judicial positions for candidates with identical qualifications.
The petitioner highlighted that in an earlier case filed by him before the Delhi High Court, the BCI informed the Court that candidates clearing the qualifying exam would receive provisional enrolment, allowing them to commence practice within two years’ time to pass the AIBE; the petitioner further apprised the Court that the next AIBE would be scheduled only in June 2026.
The petitioner asserted before the Supreme Court that the challenge before the High Court concerned only the scheduling of examinations while the present petition concerned the validity of the qualifying examination itself.
Represented by P B Sashaankh, Vipin Nair, Aditya Narendranath, Haresh Nair, M.b.ramya, Deeksha Gupta, Puspita Basak and Madhavi Yadav, the petitioner reiterated that the Bar Council’s rule led to unequal treatment of similarly placed candidates, since foreign law graduates in Karnataka were being permitted enrolment without the additional exam while those in other jurisdictions faced an extra hurdle without rational justification.
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
AOR Radhika Gautam appeared for the BCI.
A bench of JusticeVikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta found that the petitioner had already approached the Delhi High Court on the same issue and later withdrew the plea after securing the assurance regarding provisional enrolment. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had sought similar relief earlier and found no grounds to entertain a fresh challenge.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, effectively affirming that the BCI-mandated qualifying examination remains compulsory for foreign law graduates seeking enrolment in India, notwithstanding completion of the two-year bridge course.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
