Final-Year Law Students Challenge BCI’s AIBE Notification in Supreme Court

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by nine final-year law students from Delhi University, challenging the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) notification that bars final-semester students from appearing for the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE-XIX) scheduled for November 24, 2024. The stud

Final-Year Law Students Challenge BCI’s AIBE Notification in Supreme Court

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of India challenging a recent notification issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI), which prevents final-year law students from appearing in the upcoming All-India Bar Examination (AIBE-XIX). The exam is scheduled to take place on November 24, 2024, and the notification specifically bars final-semester students from registering and participating. This petition has been filed by nine final-year students of the 3-year LL.B program at Delhi University’s Campus Law Centre and Law Centre, asserting that the BCI notification is both arbitrary and contrary to an earlier Supreme Court judgment.

Challenge to BCI Notification:

  • The petition, filed by nine final-year law students, challenges the Bar Council of India’s notification prohibiting final-semester students from appearing for the AIBE-XIX, set for November 24, 2024.
  • The petitioners claim that this notification is contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Bar Council of India v. Bonnie FOI Law College, where it was established that final-semester students should be allowed to sit for the AIBE, provided they clear their law degree.
  • The BCI had also been directed by the court to conduct the AIBE twice a year to accommodate law graduates.

Petitioners’ Arguments:

  • The petitioners argue that the BCI notification unfairly prevents them from appearing in the upcoming AIBE-XIX, leading to a loss of valuable time in advancing their legal careers.
  • They highlight that the notification is arbitrary and unreasonable, as it disregards the differing timelines of universities in declaring results, which can cause delays for some students.
  • The petition asserts that this restriction negatively affects students whose results are delayed, causing them to miss out on the examination and delaying their professional growth.

Reliefs Sought by the Petitioners:

The petitioners seek the following key reliefs from the Supreme Court:

  1. Quashing of the BCI notification barring final-semester students from appearing in the AIBE-XIX.
  2. A direction to allow final-semester students to appear in the AIBE-XIX scheduled for November 24, 2024.
  3. An interim stay on the impugned notification to prevent its implementation until the matter is finally decided.

Bench to Hear the Matter:

  • The petition will be heard by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. The hearing is scheduled for Friday, September 13, 2024.
  • The petitioners are represented by Advocate on Record (AOR) A Velan and Advocate Navpreet Kaur

Nilay Rai & Ors V Bar Council of India | W.P.(C) No 577 of 2024.

Gujarat’s Judicial Crisis: 15.61 Lakh Pending Cases and 535 Vacant Judicial Posts
Gujarat’s Judicial Crisis: 15.61 Lakh Pending Cases and 535 Vacant Judicial Posts
Gujarat’s judicial system faces 15.61 lakh pending cases and 535 judicial vacancies. Experts call for urgent reforms to fill positions, improve case management, and reduce delays in justice.
Banned Weapons Used by Israel: International Justice Demanded for Alleged 'Body Vaporization' in Gaza
Banned Weapons Used by Israel: International Justice Demanded for Alleged 'Body Vaporization' in Gaza
Hamas demands an international probe into Israel’s use of banned weapons in Gaza, as death tolls rise. With over 44,000 Palestinians dead, the need for accountability grows.
1988 Murder Case Convict, Aged 103, Granted Freedom by Supreme Court in Rare Move
1988 Murder Case Convict, Aged 103, Granted Freedom by Supreme Court in Rare Move
The Supreme Court ordered the interim release of a 103-year-old convict serving a life sentence for a 1988 murder case, citing the convict's advanced age and humanitarian considerations. Introduction
Powered by Lit Law
New Chat
Sources

Ask Lit Law