Was the case earlier in Cal and Bom HCs, for both being a pleader there, and being an AOR there. For context, an AOR or someone who acts is someone who files, while a pleader is someone who argues. Before the Advocates Act of 1961, each HC through its state bar council would enroll lawyers (using a very generic term here) who would be qualified to only practice in that HC. To go to any other HC, they needed permission from that HC. This was usually granted.it was the case with SC as well, you had to be registered with them. They used to have a list of advocates entitled to practice there. All of this came from the Indian Bar Council Act of 1926. Before that, you had vakeels, pleaders, attorneys, solicitors, advocates, barristers, etc.

Cal and Bom Hc, in their OS, had an exam called the OS exam. This is what the BILS conducts today. Exam was to become an AOR in the OS. That made you an "attorney-at-law" and you would become a member of the ILS( there are two, one in calcutta, one in bombay, and the bombay one still conducts its exam to this day). With the AA 1961, all of this was removed vide an amendment around 1970. From then on, there were only advocates and these exams were not conducted. Cal Hc and Bom HC did away with it, but the BILS for its membership kept that exam. Its a shame the CILS did not.

The supreme court AoR system and their exam comes from this. Its called the dual system and you can read about it on the internet.

Today, to be an AOR in the OS for these two HCs, you just need to live within an area as determied by the HC/have your office there. For pleading, no such requirement is there. But yes, all the pleaders in the OS are instructed by the solicitors, ie the AoRs. So the dual system is still followed. You'll find an example in the Bom.HC OS orders in the appearance : Mr. Abc, a/w Ms. XYZ, i/b MNO law firm. Here the i/b stands for instructed by.

On a different note, with the Cal and Bom HCs being forced to do away with their OS AOR exams, its a shame and a hypocrisy the SC is allowes to keep their AOR exams. It should be done away too, or the HCs which had a OS exam should be able to conduct it like before. Mind you the HC OS exam was considered far more difficult than the SC AoR exam.

Had pretty much the same system as Bombay, called the dual system, where in the OS, the AORs were the solicitors, traditionally the members of the Incorporate Law Society (Of Bom or Cal) and the pleaders were usually barristers and members of the BBA (for Bombay) and CLBC (for Calcutta). There was an OS Exam for AORs, called the OS Exam. It was much more difficult than the AOR Exam of SC Today. That was done away with in 1970s. Now, the BILS conducts one exam which is similar. The CILS perhaps chose not to have one, which i think is a shame. Also, the SC continuing with the AOR System while the AOR Exam being abolished in the OS of Cal and Bom HCs, imo, is very stupid and hypocritical.

So while Bom HC still has the AOR exam and you need to clear the exam to be able to file a case in the Bom HC (similar to SC AOR concept), Cal HC does not have the exam but is it that the requirements like registration as an AOR , having an office premises within a specific radius remain the key requirements, if one wants to file a case on the OS?

Sidenote: Does one need to be an AOR to file cases on the Appellate side as well ?