A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution against the move to cancel the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Examination for 2026 onb the grounds of the existing strength of AORs.
Terming the decision as ex facie arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights, the petition assailed a notice dated April 30, 2026, issued by the Registrar (Judicial) and Secretary of the Board of Examiners, which stated that the AOR examination would not be conducted this year and the next examination was only tentatively scheduled for 2027.
Filed by Advocate-on-Record Mandeep Kalra on behalf of the advocates who appeared in the 2025 AOR examination and successfully cleared three out of four papers, the plea contended that the petitioners fell within the category governed by Regulation 11(i) of the AOR Examination Regulations, which entitled such candidates to reappear in the remaining paper in the immediately succeeding examination cycle.
They argued that the impugned decision disrupted an ongoing qualification process and left them midway despite substantial compliance with the examination requirements. The cancellation created an artificial gap of more than two years, which was contrary to the established practice of holding the examination annually, they noted.
The petition asserted that this action violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution by treating unequals as equals and failing to recognise the distinct class of candidates who have nearly completed the qualification process.
According to the plea, the decision lacks any intelligible differentia and fails the test of reasonable classification. It is argued that reliance on the overall strength of existing AORs has no rational nexus with the objective of a qualifying examination, which is to assess professional competence rather than regulate the number of practitioners.
The petition further contends that the decision effectively imposes a cap on the number of AORs without any statutory backing under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 or the applicable regulations. Such a restriction, it is argued, is impermissible in law. Reliance has been placed on precedents such as V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India to submit that conditions affecting entry into the legal profession must have a clear statutory basis, and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court to argue that examination rules cannot be altered midway to the detriment of candidates.
A central ground of challenge is the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The petitioners submit that both the regulatory framework and consistent past practice created a reasonable expectation that the next examination would be held in 2026, enabling them to complete the remaining paper. This expectation, they argue, crystallised upon declaration of results in February 2026, and many candidates organised their professional commitments on that basis.
The plea also alleges violation of principles of natural justice, stating that the decision was taken without prior notice, consultation, or opportunity of hearing. It characterises the impugned notice as a non-speaking order lacking adequate reasons or supporting data.
The petition submits that the decision has placed the candidates in an uncertain and prejudicial position, adversely affecting their professional advancement, livelihood, and right to practice before the Supreme Court. It seeks quashing of the notice insofar as it applies to Regulation 11(i) candidates and requests that they be permitted to appear in the remaining paper in 2026, failing which irreparable injustice would be caused.
The post Plea filed in Supreme Court challenges cancellation of AOR examination 2026 appeared first on India Legal.