Ram Jethmalani v Bar Council of India

• 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.

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

• 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.

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.