Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

Final Extension to Clear AIBE — Failure Will Lead to Removal from State Rolls: Bar Council of India Issues Strict Compliance Directive

06 June 2025 12:42 PM

By: sayum


“Those who fail to clear the AIBE even within this final extended period will cease to be advocates and their names shall be removed from the State Roll.” In a decisive move to uphold professional standards and ensure strict adherence to statutory requirements, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a final one-time extension for advocates enrolled in 2022 or later who have failed to clear the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) within the mandated time.

This directive was communicated through BCI Letter No. BCI:D:2371/2025, circulated to all Bar Associations in Punjab, Haryana, and U.T. Chandigarh by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. It also includes enforcement directions against those enrolled prior to 2022 who continue to practice without clearing the AIBE, despite multiple relaxations since the pandemic.

The AIBE was introduced as a mandatory requirement under the Advocates Act, 1961, ensuring minimum professional competence before advocates are issued a Certificate of Practice. As per existing rules, an advocate must clear the AIBE within two years of enrollment, excluding certain exempted periods granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related disruptions.

The Bar Council had earlier provided relief through resolutions dated July 29, 2020, December 31, 2021, and March 30, 2022, which excluded periods between March 2020 to 31st October 2021, and October 31, 2021 to April 2023, from the computation of the two-year limit.

Despite these concessions, many advocates failed to qualify, risking disqualification from legal practice. To address this, the Bar Council has now resolved to offer a final one-year extension, which comes with stringent conditions and no scope for further relaxation.

The terms of this final relief, granted through the Bar Council of India's resolution on 2nd March 2025, are clear and binding.

First, the extension is applicable only to those advocates who were enrolled in 2022 or later, and have completed the two-year practice period excluding exempted durations without clearing the AIBE.

Second, such advocates will be issued a Provisional Certificate of Practice, valid only for the duration of this one-year extension.

Third, and most significantly, if the AIBE is not cleared within this additional period, the advocate:

  • Will cease to be recognized as an advocate

  • Will have their name removed from the State Bar Council roll

  • Will be barred from wearing court dress (gown, band, etc.) and appearing in court

  • Will lose eligibility to vote or contest elections in Bar Councils

  • Will be denied access to all welfare measures under Bar Council or Bar Association schemes

This is in strict compliance with BCI Circular No. 1516/STBC CIR No. 4/2013 dated 12.4.2013, which mandates provisional enrollment for AIBE non-passouts and explicitly disqualifies them from receiving any professional benefits.

Termination of Membership of Pre-2022 Advocates Failing AIBE

A parallel and equally serious direction has been issued for advocates enrolled after the introduction of AIBE Rules and prior to 2022, who have not yet cleared the AIBE. The Bar Council of India has instructed that:

“Bar Associations should terminate the membership of those advocates (enrolled after the introduction of AIBE Rules & Notification and prior to 2022) who are not able to clear the AIBE.”

This action is necessary to ensure that only qualified and eligible individuals continue to access the privileges and rights associated with legal practice, including Bar Association membership and participation in elections or welfare benefits.The President and Secretaries of all Bar Associations, including High Court, District, Tribunal, and Tax Bar Associations across Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh, have been directed to display this notification on their Notice Boards and WhatsApp groups, and circulate it widely among advocates for immediate compliance.

All State Bar Councils have been asked to implement the new directive without delay, inform affected advocates accordingly, and update their rolls as per the new compliance guidelines. Advocates who pass the AIBE during this extended window shall be issued regular Certificates of Practice upon submission of the requisite documentation and return of the provisional certificate.

This final one-year extension is the last opportunity for advocates enrolled in 2022 or later to regularize their legal practice. The Bar Council of India has made it unequivocally clear that no further extensions or relaxations will be granted. The message is one of regulatory firmness: uphold the standards of the legal profession, or risk disqualification.

The directive comes at a time when the legal system is emphasizing both transparency and accountability. This move seeks to balance fairness towards young professionals who faced academic and professional disruptions during the pandemic, while also enforcing long-standing statutory obligations in the legal profession.

 

Latest Legal News