Supreme Court Says No Exemption; Foreign Law Graduates Still Required to Clear BCI’s Qualifying Exam
The Supreme Court in Saanil Patnayak vs. Bar Council of India has refused to interfere with the Bar Council of India (BCI)’s rule that requires Indian citizens holding foreign law degrees to clear an additional qualifying examination before appearing for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
The petition was filed by a 25-year-old graduate from Brunel University, London, who had already completed the two-year BCI-mandated bridge course at the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), Goa. He argued that making candidates take another qualifying exam had no legal backing and simply repeated the testing already done through the bridge course and the AIBE.
He also pointed out that the Karnataka High Court had held that no extra exam was required after the bridge course, while the Delhi High Court had taken an opposite view, creating conflicting judgments for similarly placed students.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the petitioner about a related case he had earlier filed before the Delhi High Court. The BCI informed the Court that the petitioner had withdrawn that case after the Council assured the High Court that candidates who cleared the qualifying exam would be granted provisional enrolment, allowing them to start practising law until they appeared for the AIBE.
The BCI further informed the Court that the next AIBE is scheduled for June 2026, while the qualifying exam will be held in December 2025. Therefore, foreign law graduates will not be prevented from appearing for the AIBE, the BCI submitted.
Although the petitioner maintained that the issue before the Supreme Court was different and concerned the validity of the qualifying exam itself (and not the dates of the exam), the Court was not convinced. Noting that he had already pursued similar relief before the Delhi High Court and later withdrawn his plea, the Supreme Court dismissed his petition.
