We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
I think you are referring to the BILS exam
You guess it.
Regardless, its a mystery why the dual system was not there in Madras.
Sidenote: Does one need to be an AOR to file cases on the Appellate side as well ?
Go to a think-tank or research institute, this is a place where we all can at least anonymously vent our corpo law life.
Also not to forget the entire argument is a silly one.
CPC, arbitration, Constitution, and name any law as you please to, their development would have been a joke.
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.
How true is this claim? Can anyone say from personal experience?