In a significant ruling affecting Indian nationals holding foreign law degrees, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday dismissed a petition challenging the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) mandate requiring an additional qualifying examination even after completion of the prescribed “Bridge Course.” The decision, delivered by a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, has far-reaching implications for foreign-educated law graduates seeking enrolment as advocates in India.
The petitioner—a 25-year-old Indian citizen who completed his LL.B. abroad—argued that he had fulfilled all mandatory requirements under the BCI’s 2016 Rules, including the bridge course conducted by Goa University, yet the BCI insisted that he must appear for an additional qualifying exam before being allowed to sit for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea, holding that the petitioner had already secured relief before the Delhi High Court, which had dismissed his earlier writ petition as withdrawn, granting liberty only to pursue “remaining grievances.”
Background: Bridge Course vs Qualifying Exam – The Core Dispute
Under the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, Indian citizens who obtain foreign law degrees must complete a Bridge Course to remedy curriculum differences before they can qualify to take the AIBE. Once the candidate clears this course, he or she should, in principle, be eligible for provisional enrolment.
However, the BCI introduced an additional qualifying examination, separate from the bridge course assessment, creating a second layer of scrutiny.
In the petitioner’s case:
- He completed the Bridge Course at Goa University and passed its formal exam.
- Despite this, the BCI required him to undergo another qualifying exam scheduled between December 15–20, 2025.
- Only upon clearing this exam would he be given provisional enrolment and allowed two years’ time to clear the AIBE.
The petitioner argued that this requirement was arbitrary, excessive, and discriminatory—especially when similarly placed candidates in Karnataka were being allowed enrolment without such an exam.
Earlier Proceedings Before the Delhi High Court
Initially, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, seeking exemption from the additional qualifying examination. During those proceedings:
- The High Court granted the BCI time to consider whether the qualifying exam could be conducted before the AIBE scheduled for November 30.
- The BCI instead announced a qualifying exam for December 15–20 and stated that passing candidates would receive provisional registration and two years to clear the AIBE.
- It further informed the Court that the next AIBE would take place in June 2026, allowing candidates to practice provisionally in the meantime.
On November 14, the petitioner withdrew the case with liberty to challenge issues such as the validity of Rule 37 of the Rules of Legal Education, which concerns recognition of foreign law degrees.
After withdrawing the petition, he approached the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments Before the Supreme Court
In the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised several important legal and constitutional questions:
1. Conflicting High Court Judgments
He argued that two High Courts had taken divergent views on the need for the additional exam:
- Karnataka High Court (Karan Dhananjaya v. BCI) held that no additional exam is required after completing the Bridge Course.
- Delhi High Court (Mehak Oberoi v. BCI) upheld the BCI’s authority to prescribe an additional qualifying exam.
This conflict, he claimed, created uncertainty and unequal treatment for candidates across different states.
2. Unequal Treatment of Same Class of Candidates
The plea asserted that Indian citizens holding foreign LL.B. degrees constitute a single class. Yet:
- Candidates in Karnataka were allowed enrolment without the extra exam.
- Candidates elsewhere, including Delhi, were compelled to take the additional exam.
This, the petitioner argued, violated *Article 14 (equality before law), as persons with the *same educational qualifications and same bridge course completion were receiving different treatment depending on jurisdiction.
3. Misinterpretation of High Court Withdrawal
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the withdrawal of the Delhi High Court petition related only to the AIBE scheduling issue, not the challenge to the qualifying exam itself, and therefore the Supreme Court should hear the matter on merits.
Supreme Court’s Decision: No Interference
Despite the substantive issues raised, the Supreme Court was not inclined to entertain the petition.
The Bench observed:
- The petitioner had already withdrawn his plea before the High Court, and therefore the Supreme Court would not re-open the issue at this stage.
- The High Court had granted liberty only for raising unresolved grievances, not to challenge the entire qualifying exam regime afresh.
- The petitioner’s counsel’s clarification did not change the Court’s view.
Consequently, the writ petition stood dismissed.
BCI’s Position: Additional Exam Necessary for Quality and Uniformity
During the earlier Delhi High Court proceedings—summarized in this case—the BCI maintained that:
- The additional qualifying exam is necessary to ensure consistency in legal education standards, since foreign law curricula vary widely.
- The exam acts as a uniform quality filter before permitting enrolment.
- Provisional registration is permissible only after passing the qualifying exam.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal indirectly supports the BCI’s regulatory autonomy to frame eligibility conditions for advocate enrolment.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Foreign LL.B. holders must comply with the two-tier examination structure
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene means that:
- Completing the bridge course alone is insufficient.
- Candidates must also clear the BCI’s additional qualifying exam.
- Only then can they provisionally register and later appear for the AIBE.
2. Conflicting High Court decisions remain unresolved
Because the Supreme Court declined to address the larger legal question, the Karnataka vs Delhi High Court conflict remains unresolved. This may continue to create jurisdictional inconsistencies unless:
- The issue reaches the Supreme Court again through an appropriate case, or
- The BCI amends its rules to remove ambiguity.
3. Possible impact on future foreign graduates
Indian students who study abroad—particularly in the UK, Australia, and other common law jurisdictions—must now factor in:
- Bridge Course + Additional Qualifying Exam + AIBE
- Extended timelines for enrolment
- Delayed full practice rights until all exams are cleared
4. BCI’s regulatory authority reaffirmed
This decision reinforces the BCI’s power to set professional and educational conditions for enrolment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the petition in SAANIL PATNAYAK v. Bar Council of India reaffirms that the BCI’s additional qualifying exam requirement remains intact—even for candidates who have already completed the bridge course. With conflicting High Court views still unresolved, the regulatory landscape for foreign LL.B. graduates remains complex and restrictive, requiring full compliance with both BCI-mandated assessments before enrolment as an advocate in India.
Also Read
