Claiming that law graduates in some states are practising without passing the All India Bar Exam (AIBE), the Bar Council of India (BCI) said today it would permanently bar graduates from practice who do not pass within three attempts and 18 months, and assign unique identification numbers for all law students.
From December 2012, graduates would have only one-and-a-half years and no more than three attempts to pass the AIBE after graduating from three-year or five-year LLB courses.
In many states the exam had not been “mandatory” because many state bar councils were opposed to the AIBE, new BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said today at a press conference at Delhi’s Bar Council of India Bhawan today.
“Many graduates are not passing the bar exam in states, yet certificates are being given,” said Mishra, adding that all state bar councils had not come on board.
“Very soon, the Bar Council of India is going to make it (AIBE) mandatory, providing that nobody can be allowed to practice without passing this exam in the prescribed period,” he added.
Legal UID
From September 2012 the BCI would also roll-out a unique identification number (UIN) system for all lawyers and law students studying at recognised law schools in India.
“A Unique Identification Number is to be given to all law students at the time of admission, which will remain with them their whole life, as they enter the profession and whether they practice in courts, or a law firm, or somewhere else in the profession,” explained Mishra.
The UIN system would help improve lawyer welfare schemes such as the medical claims benefits, welfare fund, insurance scheme, pension and compulsory graduate stipend, and is expected to be effective within the next three to four months, he said.
A unique ID number project was first proposed by former BCI chairman Gopal Subramanium in 2011.
Board and Rainmaker
Mishra also noted that the BCI intended to constitute a board to conduct the AIBE, including Supreme Court judges, high court judges, vice chancellors of eminent law schools, and some eminent Indian advocates.
The council will meet in Chandigarh tomorrow to decide the date of the next AIBE.
Mishra had also told Legally India that the tenure of Rainmaker, which is the private consultancy company conducting the exam, ended in March of this year.
At tomorrow’s meeting members would decide whether the BCI will internally conduct the exam or enter into a contract with Rainmaker or another outside agency for the next AIBE.
Legally India and Mint reported in February that Rainmaker and the BCI had grossed around Rs 6.9 crore of revenues in the first three bar exams, of which Rainmaker was entitled to approximately 70 per cent of new sign-up fees.
Full disclosure & sponsored link: BarHacker.in is an bar exam preparation service with a 100% pass rate, that is jointly owned by iPleaders and Legally India.
Photo by comedynose
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Wouldn't this would be unconstitutional. I mean giving one-and-a-half year is clearly arbitrary, whereas people may not want to give the exam because of other employment (the Advocates Act permits one to suspend practice when taking up other employment). And then what about LL.M. students? Such an absolute rule is liable to unnecessary waste five most valuable years of student life, as well as all the resources spent, for an arbitrary cut-off of 1 and a 1/2 years? What's so special about 1 1/2 years. There could be many reasons which may legitimately force a graduate to take an exam after more than 1 1/2 years. And then, of course, there is Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which gives the right "to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business". Clearly, a 1 1/2 years and three attempt cut-off would constitute an unreasonable restriction of this right.
I mean come on, if this the sort of policy decisions we are taking in such times then I am really afraid about the future of the legal profession. This is not even a step that can possibly be in the right direction, and would certainly only be a backward and uninformed policy decision. If you're worried about advocates practising without clearing the AIBE, enforce your regulations well, do not simply make it stricter because the your task is too big.
A concerned bystander.
Rainmaker-70% of the profits, do we need an inquiry whereby who haves the share of the % of the Rainmaker.
Even IIM make more money than this by taking CAT, something fishy in here
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first