The Supreme Court of India has refused to judicially entertain a batch of writ petitions challenging the decision to cancel the Advocates-on-Record (AOR) examination for the year 2026. A division bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale, while declining to interfere on the judicial side, observed that the matter falls within the administrative domain of the Court.
The controversy arose after the Supreme Court’s Board of Examiners issued a notification on April 30, stating that the AOR examination would not be conducted in 2026. The Board cited the current overall strength of the Advocates-on-Record as the primary reason for this hiatus, indicating that the next examination is likely to be scheduled for 2027.
Administrative Recourse for Aggrieved Candidates
During the proceedings, the bench emphasized that the petitioners’ grievances would be better addressed through administrative channels rather than judicial intervention. The bench granted the petitioners liberty to submit a comprehensive representation to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The bench expressed optimism that the administrative head of the judiciary would consider the concerns of the legal fraternity with due empathy and sympathy once a formal request is placed before him.
The Court has directed that any such representation must be submitted within a period of ten days from the date of the order.
Arguments Regarding Professional Prejudice
The petitions were primarily moved by legal practitioners who had appeared in previous sessions but were unable to clear all papers. Under the existing rules, these candidates are eligible to re-attempt specific subjects in the subsequent exam. The petitioners contended that the decision to skip the 2026 session causes significant prejudice to their career progression, especially since many have been undergoing dedicated training and preparation for over a year.
It was further suggested before the bench that while the Court holds the authority to regulate the total number of practitioners designated as AORs, the complete suspension of the annual examination cycle might be an extreme measure. Some petitioners highlighted that they had missed the qualifying mark by a very narrow margin in the last session and were counting on the 2026 exam to complete their certification.
The Court’s Stance
Despite acknowledging the concerns regarding the professional impact on young lawyers, the bench maintained that it would not adjudicate the policy decision of the Board of Examiners through a writ jurisdiction. The judges reiterated their confidence in the administrative process, with Justice Kumar noting that the sheer number of existing AORs was a significant factor considered by the competent authority in making the decision. Justice Varale echoed this sentiment, expressing confidence that the administrative side would look into the matter fairly.
By disposing of the petitions with a direction to approach the CJI, the Court has shifted the resolution of this impasse from a legal battle to an administrative review.
