Gubbala Srinu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4126 AP

           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
               MAIN CASE: W.P. No. 23024 of 2022

                            PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.     DATE                            ORDER                            OFFICE
NO.                                                                       NOTE

01.   08.09.2023   RNT, J

                         Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned
                   counsel for the petitioners, Sri Maheswara Rao
                   Kuncheam, learned standing counsel for the 1st
                   respondent-Bar Council of India and Ms. S.

Pranathi, learned counsel, appearing for the 2nd respondent-Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The petitioners' prayer in the writ petition is for direction to the 1st respondent-Bar Council of India to allow the petitioners to appear in the examination of AIBE-XVIII, pursuant to the notification, dated 16.08.2023.

3. The petitioners are final semester law students.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to paragraph-38 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie FOI Law College & ors. {Civil Appeal No.969 of 2023, decided on 10.02.2023}, which is reproduced hereunder, to contend that the petitioners should be permitted by the Bar Council of India in AIBE-XVIII examination, subject to production of proof, as also the result being subject to the petitioners' passing of the

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE components required under the course of study of University/College.

"We are inclined to accept the suggestion from the learned Amicus that students who have cleared all examinations to be eligible to pursue the final semester of the final year course of law, on production of proof of the same, could be allowed to take the All India Bar Examination. The result of the All India Bar Examination would be subject to the person passing all the components required under the course of study of the University/College. This would be subject to the All India Bar Examination results being valid for a specified period of time."

5. Ms. S. Pranathi, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, submits that in view of Rule-9 of All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010, only the law students graduating from academic year 2009-10 and onwards and enrolled as advocates under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 are entitled to appear in such examination. She further submits that as per para-35 of the judgment in Bar Council of India (supra), the decision as to at what stage the All India Bar Examination has to be held pre or post has been left to the Bar Council of India.

6. Para-35 of Bar Council of India (supra) is reproduced as under:

"The effect of the view expressed by us

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE would be that it has to be left to the Bar Council of India as to at what stage the All India Bar Examination has to be held - pre or post. There are consequences especially in respect of the interregnum period which would arise in holding the All India Bar Examination in either scenario, and it is not for this Court to delve into them but it would be appropriate to leave it to the Bar Council of India to look to the niceties of both situations. However, in view of larger ramifications we do consider it appropriate to delve into some, though not all of the aspects which may get involved in holding the All India Bar Examination, especially in view of some suggestions made by the Amicus."

7. Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that he has to obtain instructions from the Bar Council of India as to whether any such decision is taken or not.

8. Paras-35 and 38, quoted above, contain the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. No direction is required from this Court, at this stage.

10. Learned counsels for respondent No.1 & 2 submit that writ petitions were filed in different High Courts on the subject of the Bar Council enrolment fee, which have been transferred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

SL.   DATE                           ORDER                          OFFICE
NO.                                                                  NOTE

11. The matter is pending there. Some of the prayers made in the present writ petition, are with respect to such fee also. The prayers (ii) &

(iii) are, that the 1st respondent can charge only a reasonable fee based on actual expenditure incurred, and prayed for refund the excess fee, if any, paid by them for the AIBE-XVIII examination, after fixing the new examination fee.

12. Post on 20.09.2023.

_________ RNT, J Dsr