The AoR Examination Must Not Be Cancelled

 

The decision of the Supreme Court’s Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Examination Committee not to hold the AoR Examination in 2026 is deeply disappointing and difficult to justify. The reason reportedly offered—that the existing number of AoRs is already adequate—is flimsy, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of fairness and professional opportunity.

The AoR system is not merely an internal administrative arrangement. It is the gateway through which advocates earn the right to independently file and conduct matters before the Supreme Court. Closing that gateway for an entire year amounts to denying deserving lawyers an opportunity they have spent years preparing for.

The numbers themselves tell a different story. About twenty-five years ago, only 10 to 15 candidates would pass the examination annually. Today, hundreds qualify. In 2024, more than 350 candidates cleared the examination out of nearly 1,200 who appeared. In 2025, only 207 passed out of more than 1,550 candidates. The pass percentage dropped sharply from nearly 30 per cent in 2024 to less than 14 per cent in 2025. These figures hardly suggest an uncontrolled flood of AoRs.

There are clear reasons why more lawyers now qualify. First, the legal profession today attracts far brighter and more committed students than it did decades ago. Earlier, many students entered law courses as a fallback while preparing for other competitive examinations. Today, law is often a first-choice profession, pursued seriously and competitively from the outset.

Second, the old Accountancy paper—long regarded as a stumbling block despite being only of school-level difficulty—has been removed. Its elimination naturally enabled meritorious candidates to focus on subjects genuinely relevant to Supreme Court practice.

But even assuming the Committee believes too many candidates are passing, cancellation is the worst possible remedy. If standards need tightening, make the examination tougher. Raise the bar. Test drafting, procedure, ethics, and court craft more rigorously. Permit only the deserving to succeed. But do not abolish the opportunity itself.

Every candidate is already required to undergo one year of mandatory training under a senior AoR with at least ten years’ standing. Many young lawyers have devoted time, effort, and income to complete this rigorous requirement. To deny them an examination after such preparation is manifestly unfair.

If the Committee’s logic is accepted, then whenever a profession appears crowded, entry examinations should simply be suspended. Should law colleges be shut for a few years because there are too many lawyers? Should medical admissions be halted because there are too many doctors? The absurdity of the proposition is self-evident.

More importantly, the very rationale of restricting AoRs by geography has weakened in the digital era. With e-filing, virtual hearings, online defect curing, and paperless systems, the old insistence on maintaining offices within a 16-kilometre radius of the Supreme Court has become outdated. A lawyer can now effectively work from any part of India—and even from abroad.

The Supreme Court has consistently spoken of access, merit, and modernisation. The cancellation of the AoR Examination moves in the opposite direction. It restricts access, penalises merit, and ignores technological reality.

The Examination Committee should urgently reconsider its decision and hold the AoR Examination in 2026. Standards must be preserved—but opportunity must not be denied.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anchor cannot be held responsible for the views of panellists

  The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan delivered a remarkable judgment on 13th June, which should be praised for promoting the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Constitution of India. On 6th June, the Andhra police arrested one Mr K Srinivas Rao, an anchor of the Telugu TV channel Sakshi, for allegedly abetting defamatory and derogatory remarks made by a panellist on his show about Amravati, the new capital of Andhra Pradesh. Amravati is located very close to Vijayawada. The judges stated that the anchor Rao did not make any statement himself; rather, it was one of the participants who contemptuously remarked that Amravati was becoming the ‘capital of sex workers. There is no doubt that these days, the panellists are invited by the TV channels that subscribe to the views and ideas of those particular channels. They are given the freedom to speak only if they adhere to the channels' views; if their opinions do no...
Read more

India has instilled fear in Pakistanis by calling their nuclear bluff

India has decisively defeated Pakistan in a war that lasted only three days; otherwise, Pakistan would not have requested or even agreed to a ceasefire. Wars between even very strong and weak countries have often continued for months. The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, was unique; it lasted for two decades. It was fought in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. North Vietnam received support from China and the Soviet Union, while the South was backed by the United States, Thailand, Australia, and South Korea. The war commenced on 1 November 1955 and concluded on 30 April 1975. The US began direct military involvement in Vietnam in 1964, which lasted until 1973. Today, the Vietnamese refer to this conflict as the Resistance War Against America. From 1965 to 1973, the US expended $120 billion on the conflict. An estimated 58,200 Americans lost their lives, while around 110,000 were injured. Two million Vietnamese perished, and an additional twelve million became refugees...
Read more

Media's freedom is a fundamental right and an essential part of the constitution; any campaign to elevate it to the status of a fourth pillar is sheer absurdity

      Some journalists and their so-called organisations seem to possess an abysmally low or almost non-existent understanding of the Indian constitution. They are advocating for the media to be granted the status of a fourth pillar, akin to the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive. The notion of the press as the "fourth pillar" of democracy is widely acknowledged, particularly in democratic nations, though it is not a formal designation recognised across all countries. It serves as a metaphor for the press's role in holding power accountable and informing the public. In India, the press is often described as the fourth pillar and is constitutionally protected; however, it operates within a framework of laws that balance freedom with other societal values, such as national integrity. While freedom of the press is explicitly provided under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, in India, it is implied under Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the freedom of speec...
Read more