Ram Jethmalani v. Bar Council of India

Facts

• Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani and others challenged the introduction of AIBE by BCI.
• They argued that BCI lacked statutory power to introduce a mandatory examination post-enrolment.
• The challenge was based on: (a) lack of rule-making authority, (b) violation of Art. 19(1)(g), (c) arbitrariness.
• BCI defended AIBE as necessary to ensure minimum competence before independent practice.

Issues

1. Whether BCI has statutory power to introduce AIBE.
2. Whether AIBE violates Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Held

• BCI has statutory power under S.7(1)(h) (promote legal education), S.49(1)(af) (make rules for conditions of practice), and S.24(3)(d) (prescribe additional conditions for enrolment).
• AIBE does not violate Art. 19(1)(g). It is a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(6) in the interest of the general public.
• Public interest justification: The examination ensures that persons who practise independently possess minimum legal competence. This protects litigants from incompetent representation.
• The challenge was dismissed. AIBE was upheld as constitutionally valid.

Ratio Decidendi

BCI's power to "promote legal education" and "prescribe conditions" extends to ensuring post-enrolment competence through examination. AIBE is not an additional barrier to entry but a quality assurance mechanism. Its open-book, unlimited-attempt format ensures it tests minimum competence without being exclusionary.