New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has rejected a petition that sought lowering of the cut-offs in All India Bar Examination (AIBE) for law graduates, with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud adding a ‘please study’ advice for the petitioner.

The All India Bar Examination is conducted by the Bar Council of India, and law graduates must clear it to start their practice. This exam is conducted in over 10 languages twice a year and can be taken at any age. The subjects in the exam are wide-ranging, including Constitutional laws, criminal laws, PILs, environmental laws and industry laws. Taxation and intellectual property laws are also part of the syllabus, along with several other branches.

Currently, the cut-off for this exam is 45 per cent of general category of OBC candidates and 40 per cent for applicants from SC/ST categories.

“They have put a cut-off of 45 for general, OBC and 40 for SC/ST …what kind of lawyer will the person be if they cannot score this much?,” the Chief Justice said. He then added, “Padho bhai”.

Recently, in response to a query under the Right to Information Act, the Bar Council had said that over 50 per cent of candidates who took the exam last year had failed to clear it.

According to the AIBE website, it is an open book exam aimed at assessing basic level knowledge and analytical skills for a candidate willing to practise law.

New Delhi:

The Bar Council of India (BCI) Wednesday approached the Delhi High Court against a direction to it to process the enrolment of a South Korean national as an advocate.

BCI chairman senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra argued that foreign lawyers are not allowed to practice in courts here as their entry has been permitted in a limited manner and the order of a single judge setting aside its refusal to allow the South Korean citizen’s request for enrolment cannot be sustained.

Mr Mishra also submitted that the apex bar body has verify the factum of “reciprocity” of similar permission to practice for Indian nationals in South Korea.

“This will open a floodgate,” he argued, adding that this is may later result in the entry of lawyers from Pakistan and Nepal into the country.

A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that Daeyoung Jung in the instant case held a law degree from an Indian institute and was not a “foreign lawyer” and the law permitted him to practice here if Indians were allowed to practice in his country and this aspect has been considered by the single judge.

“Speaking for myself, I dont find anything wrong in the single judge’s order,” Justice Sanjeev Narula, also part of the bench, said.

Granting 6 weeks’ time to BCI to establish that the guidelines in South Korea do not permit Indians to practice there, the court said, “If the South Korean government says Indians will be allowed, you have no case.” Earlier this year, the single judge had set aside BCI’s refusal to accept a request by Jung, a citizen of South Korea, to enrol himself as an advocate in the country and directed the apex bar body to process his application as per law.

The singe judge had observed that he held a law degree from National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) in Hyderabad, which was duly recognised under the Advocates Act and entitled him to seek enrolment under the law.

In its order, the single judge had stated that as per the legal framework under the Advocates Act, a national of any other country may also be admitted as an advocate and the right of enrolment of such a foreign national was subject only to the condition that duly qualified Indian citizens were also permitted to practice law in that other country.

The matter would be heard next in December. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)