Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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