Introduction:
In SAANIL PATNAYAK v. Bar Council of India, W.P.(C) No. 1132/2025, the Supreme Court of India, before a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the Bar Council of India’s requirement of an additional qualifying examination for Indian nationals holding foreign law degrees, even after completion of the prescribed Bridge Course. The petitioner, represented by Advocates PB Sashaankh and Vipin Nair, was a 25-year-old Indian citizen who had completed an LL.B. abroad and subsequently undertook the BCI-mandated Bridge Course from Goa University, including its formal examination, as per the 2016 BCI notification. His grievance was that despite this compliance, he was being compelled to appear for an additional qualifying exam as a pre-condition to sit for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and obtain enrolment. Earlier, the petitioner had approached the Delhi High Court seeking exemption from this qualifying exam, but the matter was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise remaining grievances. The petitioner therefore invoked Article 32 before the Supreme Court, arguing that conflicting High Court decisions and unequal treatment across states created injustice for similarly placed candidates.
Arguments:
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the BCI’s insistence on an additional qualifying examination after successful completion of the Bridge Course was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14. The petitioner asserted that two High Courts had taken contradictory views: the Karnataka High Court in Karan Dhananjaya v. Bar Council of India held that no additional exam was required for candidates who had completed the Bridge Course and its exam, whereas the Delhi High Court in Mehak Oberoi v. Bar Council of India upheld the additional qualifying exam requirement. This divergence, according to the petitioner, created uncertainty in the enrolment process and resulted in disparate treatment of candidates possessing identical qualifications. He submitted that candidates in Karnataka were enjoying enrolment without the additional exam, whereas candidates in other jurisdictions were barred from even attempting the AIBE, creating an irrational and unjustifiable classification within the same class of foreign law graduates. The petitioner emphasized that he had not received any genuine relief from the Delhi High Court, because the challenge there pertained to the interim qualifying exam and not the AIBE, and therefore withdrawal of the earlier petition did not bar the present challenge.
On the other side, the Bar Council of India, represented by Advocate Radhika Gautam, maintained that the qualifying examination was essential to ensure uniform standards among foreign law graduates and to test their understanding of Indian legal principles before allowing them entry into the profession. The BCI informed the Court that, pursuant to its schedule, the qualifying examination was fixed between December 15–20, and candidates clearing it would immediately become eligible for provisional registration with the respective State Bar Councils and would have two years to pass the AIBE. It further clarified that the AIBE was next scheduled for June 2026, meaning candidates would not be prejudiced, as they could start practice provisionally upon clearing the qualifying exam. The BCI argued that the petitioner had already approached the Delhi High Court and withdrawn his petition after receiving liberty, and therefore the Supreme Court need not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. It contended that the challenge was premature and lacked any substantive grounds for bypassing established remedies or reconsidering policy choices of the expert regulatory body entrusted with maintaining professional standards.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court declined to entertain the writ petition, observing that the petitioner had already approached the Delhi High Court, sought relief there, and voluntarily withdrawn the matter with liberty to raise remaining grievances. The Bench emphasized that once the petitioner had elected a remedy and withdrawn at an advanced stage, he could not approach the Supreme Court seeking the same relief under Article 32. Despite the petitioner’s contention that the Delhi High Court matter dealt with an interim qualifying exam rather than the AIBE, the Court was not inclined to interfere, holding that the petitioner had indeed obtained a form of relief—namely, permission to raise further grievances before the appropriate forum. The Court also refrained from delving into the conflict between the Karnataka and Delhi High Court judgments, noting that such issues could be appropriately addressed in a proper proceeding before the competent High Court or through statutory mechanisms rather than in a petition directly invoking Article 32. Consequently, the plea was dismissed, leaving intact the BCI’s requirement of an additional qualifying exam for foreign law graduates even after completion of the Bridge Course.