why cant we just let-go our short term interests for the sake of betterment of the legal profession. It is a welcome move by GS and is real disheartning that even the "National law School" grads. are also not supporting him. We all have to accept that the standards of bar have gone down. Let us join hands and support this amazing initiative. Qualifying to appear before the court should be made as tough as possible... so that not every tom dick and harry comes and calls himself a lawyer.

The protest is essentially against a system which first estoppes the graduates from practicing for 6-8 months without even being ready to conduct the examination. Ideally BCI should have introduced it as a voluntary exam like the solicitors exam in mumbai for couple of years and then once the machinery was in place and experience had been gained then should have made it mandatory. The writ is not against the exam per se it is against the present status of the students who do not have any options other than to wait for six months.

GS has been postponing the proposed examination many a times indicating the unpreparedness of BCI.

instead of fighting with the BCI on the issue of the bar exam the NLU grads should be fighting with them on the issue of foreign law firms. NLU grads can easily pass the bar exam and don't have to fear it. fatehpal thinks that a mere six months of being denied advocate status period will hamper his career but does not realise that by blocking foreign law firms the BCI is denying people like him better job opportunities. in any case, moily and GS have said that fresh grads can work for law firms with pay after they graduate. what's the ****ing problem then?

it is also sad to see a respected teacher like shamnad basheer rallying with the NUJS students to oppose the exam.

@#3, y dont you read the article in full? Please read Aditya Swarup's comment

Way to go khara :-)

I totally agree with @2...this delay in conduct of bar exam is gonna hamper careers of many litigating lawyers...plus the distinction between lit and corp/ transactional lawyers doesnt sound right...even as transactional lawyers u r practising law as u still advise on issues of law to clients which becomes the basis for advocating the same position before the courts...the fight is not against the exam but against the failed system..which effectively implement things it promised before the Court..though i passed my law six years ago...i fully support the cause and writ against this failed initiative against the BCI...

Although the Bar exams are a welcome move, it cannot be denied that they are inconveniencing law graduates right now. Immediate relief is what the petitioner Fatehpal Singh seeks.
After reading what the SG has to say, it appears that the exam date was postponed under reasonable circumstances. It is only fair that all graduates from the present be allowed to take the exam, and announcement of results had to be considered.
Also, the courses and materials being made available is essential.
Considering these practical limitations there is no use pointing fingers at the Bar Council of India. Hopefully next year, all the machineries will be in place and all 913 law universities across the country will be given a common date by which to announce their results in order to avoid such discrepancies.

Since it is the first time this exam is being held, there are bound to be such problems, we law students, just need to have patience and make way for such changes which will bear fruit in the long term.
On technicalities and in spirit I fully agree with, and support Fatehpal Singh's petition.

But as Bentham rightly said, "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong."

I obviously cannot verify your identity as the author of the above comment. That said, it would be foolish to say that I do not believe you are who you portray yourself to be. Even faced by this dilemma, I feel I would lose nothing by making a point I have always wanted to write to Mr. Gopal Subramanium about.

Whereas I agree with the need for a bar exam, I cannot understand the reason for making it mandatory for 2010 graduates and holding it in December, 2010. I read on the BCI website that the regular cycle for the bar exam from 2011 will be in April and November. Now, why have an out of cycle first exam in December and not have it in its regular cycle (in April, 2011). To put it simply, whats the hurry?

From your letter I can distill only two reasons for the decision for implementing the bar exam (out of turn) for the 2010 graduates - (1.) that there is paucity of time (because of the short duration of your term) and (2.) because we are already lagging behind in lawyers reforms. Unfortunately, I fail to understand the reason behind these justifications. Just because you are worried of the term of your appointment, you cannot take a decision affecting the life of many graduates (at least for the six months till december). To go by your logic, I dread to think of what an outgoing Prime Minister or President would do to further and crystallize his personal beliefs in government rules and policy. Regarding your second reason, I fail to see the link between lagging legal reforms and the need for a "special" (in the "out of turn" sense) bar exam for the 2010 batch. I do not think there is sufficient linkage here to prevent 2010 graduates from practising and earning their livelihood for 6 months.

Now, lets look at the alternative. What's wrong with having the first bar exam in April, 2011 and the next one in November, 2011? Make the bar exam compulsory for the 2011 batch, which gives them sufficient time to prepare, as well. And 2010 graduates will not have to stay out of "practice" for the six months also. When everything can be better arranged and managed by holding the exam from next year, then why the hurry? They all sound like pros to me. Cons? I really cannot think of any, except, of course, the evanescent nature of all appointments to high offices such as yours. But I urge you to please not act on such personal and hasty impulses.

Looking forward to hearing "Mr. Subramaniums'" reasoned response.

S

Kian, is there any way to verify that the person above is indeed Mr. Gopal Subramanium?

Dear Mr Subramaniam,
I support the bar exam and cannot understand why NLU students are opposing it. But please forgive my skepticism at your statement "we are behind schedule in lawyer reforms"? The BCI and the bar associations have never done anything to cure the rot in the legal community. They jeer at Montek Singh Ahluwahlia when he criticises lawyers for seeking injunctions but keep quiet about unethical practices. They vociferously oppose foreign law firms but maintain silence about the limited opportunities available in the legal sector and the pathetic salaries given to juniors. The Indian bar and justice system is one of the world's most corrupt. I do not doubt your integrity and good intentions but everyone knows how things are.

Thanks for the confirmation, Kian. A suggestion : you may wish to place his comments/letter in the front page (editorial) to get wider readership. Further, this may be the first time the SG is reaching out to a wider audience (particularly law students) and giving his views on the BCI exam. Should be highlighted

I think a lot of law students are running around like headless chickens, and have an over-exaggerated sense of what they will be doing the first 6 months of their career. In reality the first six months most fresh lawyers entering litigation will do some research, some drafting and generally follow the senior(s) around. At best if they get any chance to appear in court it will be to ask for a passover or adjournment. Needless to say, asking for passovers and adjournments is not a great skill you need to develop. If law students think that their seniors are going to give them a chance to argue matters, or cross-examine witnesses, they are living in a world of fantasy.

So really their opposition only serves their misconceived idea of what they will be doing the first 6 months, and instead mars the introduction of a very positive and much needed move.

Take it from me - I am still rather young in the profession (< 2 years) - your first 6 months are barely better than an internship and missing the chance to appear in court is not going to make the slightest difference to your career. In fact this exam will help weed out incompetent people from entering the field and will actually the client to lawyer ratio, benefiting competent lawyers in the long run.

Nisha

Great efforts i must say these petitions are going in right direction i think all of us from 2010 batch are in support with you guys i even appreciate the delegation in delhi according to news reports they have net Shanti Bhushan , Attorney General, Digvijay Singh, Rajeev Dhavan, contacting Mukul Rohatgi, PP Rao....... justice JS Verma alongwith moily...... and probably Siddharth Seth is planning to now move to Supreme Court. I am sure they will pull off this exam.... great strategy guys iam from banglore jus post any assisstance if u ppl want.

Ankit from CLC DELHI.

Wonderful initiatives guys these delegation people have also circulated letters and representaion to different state bar councils and i think their president gave a presentation abt this to several senior members frm the bar in delhi as well , punjab chairman has resigned after this in support of our cause and after the circulation of facts and these letters the DELHI state bar council will be passing a resolution against this exam tomm ...........Congratulations guys and all the best for supreme court Siddharth Seth. WE are already supporting this delegation from outside and we continur to support fully further !

Dear Mr. Subramaniam, I whole heartedly agree with you and applaud your vision and intentions. I want to make three points though :

1) Agreed you want to raise the standard of lawyers, what about the standard of their minimum wages?

2) Your son sir, by god's grace, is placed at a very advantageous position because of, apart from other things, having you as his father. Unfortunately, thousands of us have not been that lucky. Some of us have absolutely no god fathers in the profession, and are going to start with incomes less than those given to an MCD clerk. So I disagree that your son giving the exam is a fair example of charity beginning at home. :-) For most of us, a seven month gap in being able to appear in courts is the difference between our staying hungry or eating sir. :-) Litigation as you must be knowing is a profession where even for the most talented, time is the essence for success. A seven month gap will make a lot of difference to our careers sir.

3) Why burden the batch of 2010 since we never had any prior information? Why not start this noble initiative with the batch of 2011?

Yours Sincerely

I have a suggestion, let the 2010 batch practice, let them give the bar exam, if they fail, lets debar them. There is no need to issue a "temporary licence", they can simply be debarred from appearing in courts thereafter.

All these remarks and protests against introduction of bar exam, petitions to delay the exams, finding faults with the policy, and various other reactions that we r seeing here - merely shows how averse the legal fraternity is towards change!

Any semblance of the slightest inconvenience or challenge is being treated with such hostility!
By not accepting the positive reforms (which are no doubt being forced down our throats rapidly) we are just making victory sweeter for those in favour of these reforms when they win, because it is obvious that they will succeed! and why not.. coz the law AND logic is on that side!

So, why not for once, welcome the changes and take a step forward instead of pulling it back and settling for the easy way out?

and those who argue that "we are merely asking for the changes to be implemented from next year"... kal kare so aaj kar!

Moreover, the major hue and cry about not being able to practise for 7 months, guys read comment no.20 properly because he/she seriously has a point!!!!!

If the BCI has finally woken up and has begun to see the light.. (better late than never!) We should support the change.

since you mention the doha "kal kare so aaj kar..." let me also remind you of the adage: "jaldi ka kaam, shaitaan ka kaam". Quotes and idioms, I do not think, are going to help solve this quagmire!

S

OMG..WTF??? so much fuss over a non-issue. why the hell are these ppl not lobbying for foreign law firms? that will solve all the complaints ppl have about low wages etc. abey bacche log...6 months will not make a diff

everyone in the legal fraternity seems to have their own agenda, from the 2010 grads to law firmites to advocates, everyone thinks their problem is the biggest (and only) problem. God help save our nation and the democratic principles its founded on!

@28: what a dumb remark. obviously ppl will push their own interests. democracy means the will of the majority. the majority in india are stupid illiterate people. that is why we have mayawati as UP CM, veerappa moily as law minister and stone-throwing thugs as representatives of indian lawyers. the "democratic principles" our country was founded on are still very much alive. on the contrary what could have "saved our nation" if we had a benevolent centre-right wing dictatorship like singapore. coming back to the bar exam it is interesting how teh BCI speaks about "merit" and "reforms" but strongly opposes foreign law firms. this is another example of the fine democracy we live in.

For those concerned about the exam, a new proposal is afoot. The examination will be conducted as scheduled, but it will not be mandatory. Those who wish not to do the exam may choose to skip it, but at their peril, with CLE around the corner.

I am just wondering why Mr Subramanium does not like to use Capital Letters?

Mr. S,

Why would you want to enroll people with law degrees if they cannot practice law till they clear the bar exams? If one is enrolled and does not clear the exam, how will you ensure that they do not appear in court? I feel there will be a problem in the implementation of this endeavour. If this is not implemented well it defeats the entire purpose of this task. May be you should consider enrollment only once law graduates clear the bar exam. I wouldn't like to wonder how the young law graduates will react to this suggestion. What are your views on this?

JW

being a student of law myself and having just enrolled myself as an advocate, i must say that the concept of bar exam as a criterion to be enrolled is a step in the right direction. when i see the apathetic conditions of the courts including the high courts i squirm... when i see the attitude and conduct of most 'supposed' advocates i feel ashamed to be in this profession. it is the need of the hour to have a whiff of professionalism in our field. an exam that tests the integrity, attitude, and communication skills, apart from the legal knowledge, is a MUST. but the bar council would have done better if it had made this imperative after having all systems in place to carry it out... to make freshers idle around is an absolute NO NO...all the more when the number of lawyers who choose litigation over plum corporate offers is on the descent, to make such willing litigators idle around will only kill their interest...i think the BCI would do better by implementing this in a phased manner only after it has the required systems in place... till then let status quo continue!!

@#35:
Maybe your assessment is that "most" fresh lawyers (and not "all") will only ask for adjournments and passovers in the first few years. It's not my experience. I have not seen a single lawyer (in Supreme Court, HC or trial courts) argue a matter, conduct witness examination etc. in their first 6 months. Of course to any such thing there are always exceptions. But I think we both agree that's really the execption, not the norm.

And I agree with your point that there is this grey issue of when will your experience be counted from.

I think it's safe to say that by and large competent people who values standards in the profession accept that the move is a good thing. The only two valid points of contention I see are:

a) Why is it being introduced in a hurry and not a phased manner i.e. by next year? (Perhaps this is because right now there are people in power who have the will to get this reform done, whereas who knows whether the people who come into power next would care about anything other than filling their own pockets).

b) On what basis was Rainmaker selected to hold these exams? Do they have the necessary experience? Was there an open 'tender'? To what extent are they involved.? Are they only the administrators, or will they have a role in setting the paper itself?

I just got enrolled with bar council and bar council ttol me specifically that i can practice law becuase they have no directions.

SIDDHARTH S SETH
(President of the National Delegation of Law Students)

With great respect to Mr. Subramanium . Sir, at the outset let me accept that i have become ur admirer..... because of ur noble intentions to improve this profession.

I have some questions can we have ur answers :

1. Dont u think its a bit hasty decision to implement this exam in 2010?
2. Dont u think if students were informed about this before their academic year started they could have prepared themselves well ?
3. Did BCI sent any guideliness to any college or university ? (to the best of our info being the students when we asked our authoruities till date none .)
4. Have u taken all the State Bar Councils in confidence ?
5. Whether BCI is empowered under the Advocates Act , 1961 to frame such rules ?
(Read V. Sudeer v. CCI 1999sc)
6. Even if u say u have power under sec. 49 jus go through this :........

cont.....

Siddharth S. Seth..... cont

The National delegation will now take your kind attention to the legal issues involved with this concept of BAR EXAM
LEGAL ASPECTS : ON RECORD
1.Whether the Bar Council of India is empowered under the Advocates Act, 1961 to frame any new rule or condition for enrollment in bar?

The national delegation after carefully studying the legal provisions in light of the precedents passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court of India is of the considered opinion that :
•The Bar Council of India is not all empowered to frame any such rule or condition regarding the enrollment in bar.
•President of this Delegation would like to go on record that the delegation is of the considered opinion : that

“Rule no 9-11 framed by the Bar Council of India which was recently brought through resolution no. 73/2010 and which has been Notified in the Official Gazette of India on 12th of June 2010 is ultra vires / against the Advocates Act,1961 read with the Constitution of India and no such rule or condition can be brought in to affect without there being an amendment in the Advocates Act 1961.”

The delegation would like to substantiate its stand by presenting the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the precedents/ previous judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Sec 24 of the Advocates Act says:
Sec 24. Persons who may be adopted as advocates on a State roll.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made there under, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if he fulfills the following conditions, namely: -
(a) He is a citizen of India:
Provided that subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, a national of any other country may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are permitted to practise law in that other country;

(b) He has completed the age of twenty-one years;
(c) He has obtained a degree in law.

The delegation would like to explain its considered opinion that in light of Sec. 24 in the Advocates Act, 1961 which stands today, the act only prescribes the abovementioned three conditions ie: a) That the person should be a citizen of India.
b) He should have attained 21 years of age.
And c) He should have cleared LL.b from a recognized college/university and should have obtained a valid degree in the eyes of law.
However , there is no other structural condition in the present act and therefore if any new condition like “ clearing the NATIONAL BAR EXAM” has to be implemented it requires a legislative sanction by the parliament by way of an amendment in the Advocates Act 1961. This has already been decided in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India in its judgment of 1999.
IMPORTANT PARAS:

cont Para 23 of the judgement :
“ It must, therefore, be held that the rule making power contemplated by the legislature under Section 49(1)(ag) for being exercised by the Bar Council of India as pertaining to only those classes or categories of persons who were thought fit to be enrolled as advocates though they might not be eligible to be enrolled under Section 24(1) of the Act as it stood on the statute book. In other words, this enabling rule making power only by which the Bar Council of India could add to the category of eligible persons for enrolment which would have otherwise remained outside the sweep of the statutory scheme of eligibility for enrolment as laid down by Section 24(1), did not contemplate any power to curtail the existing eligibility of applicants under Section 24(1) for enrolment as advocates. It is only for such additional class or category of persons that the enabling provision as per the said rule making power could be available to the Bar Council of India. It is difficult to appreciate how by any process of interpretation an enabling provision can be treated as a restrictive one. In fact, on a conjoint reading of Section 24(3)(d) and Section 49(1)(ag) the conclusion becomes inevitable that the Bar Council of India in exercise of its statutory function entrusted to it under Sub-section (3)(d) of Section 24(1) can frame suitable rule for bringing in the umbrella of enrolment provision those who otherwise would have remained outside. The rule making power under Section 49(1)(ag) has to take colour from the statutory function entrusted to the Bar Council of India by Section 24(3)(d). As we have already held that Section 24(3)(d) does not enable the Bar Council of India to impose additional restriction on the eligibility of an applicant who seeks enrolment as per Section 24(1) by necessary implication power under Section 49(1)(ag) also cannot enable such an impermissible exercise. The rule making power under Section 49(1)(ag) is ancillary to the statutory function entrusted to the Bar Council of India by Section 24(3)(d) and it cannot travel beyond the said statutory sphere. ”

Para 24.
“So far as Section 49(1)(ag) is concerned, it has also to be kept in view, as noted earlier that Section 24(3)(d) and Section 49(1)(ag) were simultaneously introduced in the Act in 1964. At that time there were specific provisions regarding pre-enrolment training under Section 24(1)(d) and Section 28(2)(b). Thus, the enactment of Section 24(3)(d) and Section 49(1)(ag) could never have been intended to include implied power/function to make pre- enrolment training Rules and that too by the Bar Council of India which had nothing to do at the initial stage of enrolment of advocates on the State rolls. ”

Para 32 :
Para 32. “It is true that these suggestions of the High Power Committee clearly highlighted the crying need for improving the standards of legal education and the requirements for new entrants to the legal profession of being equipped with adequate professional skill and expertise. There also cannot be any dispute on this aspect. However, as the saying goes "a right thing must be done in the right manner". We appreciate the laudable object with which the Bar Council of India has framed the impugned rules for providing training to the young entrants to the profession by laying down details as to how they should get appropriate training during their formative years at the Bar. Unfortunately, for the Bar Council of India that right thing has not been done in the right manner. We equally share the anxiety of the Bar Council of India for evolving suitable methods for improving the standards of legal education and legal profession. The aforesaid recommendations made by the High Power Committee could have been put into practice by following appropriate methods and adopting appropriate modalities by the Bar Council of India. Unfortunately, the attempt made by the Bar Council of India by enacting the impugned rules has resulted into firing at the wrong end though backed up by a very laudable purpose.”

cont : Comments : The National Delegation therefore reiterates that the suggestions and observations made in this judgment cannot be stretched and interpreted according to the wishes of BCI and therefore we believe :
1.The Bar Council of India has no power under the Advocates Act 1961 to frame new rules or condition under the act for enrollment.

2.Even if the BCI argues that here this exam is being conducted after enrollment and therefore can be covered under section 49 (a) (h) or sec 49 (a) (g) then also this stretch of interpretation is absolutely wrong as firstly sec 24 does not prescribe any new condition, secondly its arbitrary and against the fundamental rights of all these students who are forced to wait for 8 months after clearing their exams and thirdly the bar council has not at all followed the justice and equity principle of giving information and required time under the Administrative Law.

3.Apart from this the bar council cannot create a separate class of advocates as “trainee advocates ” after enrollment and then asking them to appear for an exam like this because as of now the act prescribes that once a person is enrolled he automatically gets the right to practice as well.

4.Therefore, we feel the rules 9-10 so framed by BCI under their resolution no 73/2010 which has been notified in the Official Gazette of India on 12th of June 2010 is ultra vires / against the Advocates Act,1961 read with the Constitution of India and no such rule or condition can be brought in to affect without there being an amendment in the Advocates Act 1961.”

Pl note : It may be noted that this is an opinion of this delegation after studying the Advocates Act 1961, the Constitution of India and relying upon the leading judgment of V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India AIR1999SC1167 decided on 15.03.1999.
It should also be noted that recently the resolution passed by the BCI and several State Bar Council regarding restraining persons who have attained 45 years of age have already been declared ultra vires the act. Here, also the BCI was declared incompetent under the present act to frame any new condition for enrollment or stopping persons to get enrolled in the bar without there being an amendment in advocates act, 1961. Cases are : MP High Court in 2008 in the case of Dr. Shekhar Seth v. State Bar Coucil of M.P (M.P High Court) 2008(5)MPHT42 after relying on the Supreme Court Judgment of 1995 in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advise v. BCI and Anr. AIR1995SC691. There are several such judgements on the same issue.

I dont understand y u al are worried about the exam get urself enrooled and start practicing bar council is not stopping u from practicing and once u got urself enrolled no body cant stop u from practicing

Siddharth

Thanks people .
# 43, 44 and 45 Dude , u r not realizing these ppl will enroll us but will not issue us "certificate of practise" they dont have any power to do this is one..... then BCI is arguing that V. Sudeer judgement is not violated because u/s 49 (ah) they have power to do it post enrollment. Good, but even then they dont understand that as #44 has rightly said u need to amend the act..... untill then u cannot do this because as of now under art 24 there is no fourth condition of clearing this exam and apart from that the advocates act 1961 says once u r enrolled u get all subsequent rights of an advocate which includes right to practise. I dont knw why BCI is making it a prestige issue now. They should understand these simple issues..... God Bless them ! And we all say that we are not afraid of such exams but what about we wasting 8 months...... at least they could have plaaned this well and implemented earlier.

Siddharth

Iam really sorry to see how BCI is conducting these days.... i mean we met law minister , then all legal luminories and then different state bar councils all of them prima facie supported us. Many state bar councils have openly come against this move and have passed resolutions in their respective state bar councils. Apart from this many of our frnds have approached almost 8 high courts ... I would just ask a simple question from the BCI chairman ..... instead of answering some simple questions regarding the practical difficulties which this batch is facing why is he again and again propagating his wonderful and adventurous ideas to reform this profession . I have said we all respect him and his ideas but why is he not answering our simple questions. Is the BCI ready to give all of us stipends those who wish to litigate for these 8 months and then why we should be forced to again become an intern for all these 8 months.... Learned Solicitor General please speak up its high time we are also like ur children as u said ? Then Speak up please .........

Siddharth pls answer my one query I enquired Bar council of Delhi, High court Bar Association, Tis hazari bar association, they all have said that once we get ourself enrolled we get the right to practice. They have made explicitly clear that since they have no instructions from Bar they can not stop advocates from practicing

with due respect to GS

It is nice to conduct the entrance for the enrollment of Lawers but before doing so it is important to implement one syllabus for the law students through out our country. BCI is located in Delhi and the standard of the entrance exam is going to be of metropolitan and what about the students in the remote and distance areas of our country. Will they be ever able to clear this exam without uniform Law syllabus and become the Lawyers through out their life.
Please consider this before moving further. with regards to GS

#48 : well dude this is what the secretary of delhi state bar council has told me .. infact he has told me not only his state bar council but many have opposed this on several fronts and i think he has given a press statement that the delhi state bar council along with madhya pradesh, punjab and haryana, rajasthan and may others are opposed to this move of bci but u never knw this is INDIA anything can happen....... if this is true iam delighted...
# 49 exactly this is one of the major points which we are raising i hope BCI understands.... infact if they exercise it after taking care of these fundamental issues and steps i personally feel that in coming years they will be able to achieve their so called noble aim to raise the standards of this profession in its true spirit. I dont knw what is the hurry ?

#48 have u talked to nitin ahlawat?? he told me with authonticity that no bar exam this year atleast, he also added that the notification is only a proposal not final

# 52 fatehpal singh dude pl contact the national delegation of law student , the president's number is 09911636901 and email id is ... its urgent . The delegation wants some urgent advise from the petitioners.

National Delegation of law students is holding its emergency meeting. Representatives of several national law schools and state universities are already in delhi. Those who are willing to join are welcome pl contact the delegation.

Sir, my concern is something still unanswered and rather not discussed as till now.. All questions yet are about what would happen to this yr law students and their enrollment.

1. The current exam are causing a problem and a delay of 6 to 8 months which i believe wont be curtailed even for the 2011 batch.(to which I belong) as our exams happen in May and result come out max by July and regardless the materials launches and enrollment would take even longer duration of time to which i believe there will be no solution.

2. I understand your concern regarding the same but also wish you put yourself in our shoes and see how much pain we would be curtailing as we have been studying for the past five years and ready to support our and our family by earning and the delay would put us back by almost half a year.

3. Coming to the important parts the current exam system remains silent as to the what and how would those people who would like to apply for LOWER JUDICIARY and ARMY JAG would be effected by these exams. As per Army requirements the only criteria til now is scoring 55% and above and then SSB. But after this new trend what would happen to these standards as it was till now as soon as a child graduates he would be automatically be and advocate.

So, I would seek your answer as to what would change and how do you propose to curtail this.

Thank You

sir,

I think its a really on the part of poor low students who hail from remote parts, after the exam they have to wait for 6 months as thier will be in trouble . - As bar council sts exam fees is 1300 & can carry any note book / reference - then how can a poor law student can afford the fees / books - as the poor is ambitious who ha s taken as low as a carrer looses his self confidence