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 modernization. The cancellation of the AoR Examination moves in the opposite direction. It restricts access, penalizes 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.