1 2025:CGHC:54086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Order reserved on 16/10/2025) (Order delivered on 06/11/2025) WPC No. 1911 of 2025 Nitu Srivastava W/o Late Pankaj Shrivastava Aged About 40 Years Address- Opposite Old High Court Road, Jaiswal Gali, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Bar Council of India Through The Secretary of Bar Council of India Address- 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi Pin. No- 110002 2 - State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary of State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh High Court Premises, Bodri, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Nitu Shrivastava, Petitioner in person For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Advocate on behalf of Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma CAV Order Heard. 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.06 17:01:16 +0530 2 10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent no.01 to revise the previously issued flawed final answer key (ANNEXURE P/5) by restoring question numbers 5, 14 and 25 mentioned in sub clause 8.10, 8.11, 8.12 & 8.13 of para 8 of the petition, and issue a new final answer key. 10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent no. 01 to revise the previously issued flawed final answer key (ANNEXURE -P/5) and question number 75 mentioned in sub para 8.10 & 8.14 of para 8 of the petition should be deleted from the final answer key as it is against the examination rules, and a new final answer key should be issued. 10.3 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent no. 01 to the results of the AIBE-XIX examination, declared on 21.03.2025, based on the previously issued erroneous/defective/wrongful/flawed final answer key, should be immediately annulled/set aside, and an order should be given to announce the results again based on the revised final answer key and the petitioner’s result should be given based on the revised final answer key. 3 “Or” Hon’ble Court may please direct the respondent no. 01 to award proportionate/pro-rata marks to all the candidates including the petitioner in respect of the erroneous/flawed/defective questions. 10.4 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent no. 01 should be asked for clarification/justification regarding the aforementioned questions. 10.5 Any other relief/relief’s which Hon’ble court may deem fit in the fact and circumstances of the instant case. 2. The petitioner in person contended that the conduct of the All India Bar Examination-XIX (AIBE-XIX) by the Bar Council of India was wholly arbitrary, irregular, and contrary to the statutory provisions framed under the Advocates Act, 1961. It was urged that the final answer key dated 06.03.2025 was defective, as seven questions were deleted (Nos. 4, 5, 14, 25, 52, 57, 69) and three questions were modified (Nos. 13, 75, 97) without disclosing any reason or expert justification. In particular, Question No. 75 carried two correct options (A and C), which vitiated the fairness of evaluation. It was further contended that the respondent wrongly declared the result on the basis of 93 questions instead of 100, without recalculating the qualifying percentage, resulting in loss of marks and disqualification of several deserving candidates. The petitioner submitted that the introduction of ₹500 per objection and ₹500 for rechecking amounted to commercialization of a statutory 4 examination, and that the application of negative marking was wholly unauthorized since the question paper itself stated that “there is no negative marking.” The petitioner in person also relied upon Rules 9, 10(1)(a), and 11(1) of Part VI, Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Rules, asserting that the respondent had failed to conduct the examination twice a year and had delayed issuance of Certificates of Practice beyond the prescribed period, thereby violating statutory mandates. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) and Arunachal Pradesh PSC v. Hage Mamung (2023), as well as on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Dinesh Kumar Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), the petitioner urged that in cases of defective questions or erroneous answer keys, marks are to be awarded on a pro- rata basis, ensuring that no candidate suffers for administrative fault. It was thus contended that the action of the respondent is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner prayed that the Hon’ble Court may direct the respondent to revise the final answer key, restore deleted questions Nos. 5, 14 and 25, delete Question No. 75, re-evaluate the petitioner’s result, and grant all consequential reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent – Bar Council of India – contended that the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) is a statutory and regulatory exercise conducted under the authority of the Bar Council of India Act and the Advocates Act, 1961, pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi 5 Law College & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 22337 of 2008). It was submitted that by virtue of Resolution No. 73/2010, the Bar Council of India was empowered to conduct the AIBE as a condition precedent for grant of Certificate of Practice to advocates enrolled under Section 24 of the Advocates Act. It was further contended that the conduct of AIBE-XIX was in strict compliance with the statutory framework under Section 7 and Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Rules framed in Part VI, Chapter III thereof. The AIBE is intended to assess the professional competence of advocates and to ensure maintenance of standards in the legal profession. The legality and competence of the BCI to conduct the AIBE has been upheld by a Five-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 969 of 2023, decided on 10.02.2023), which affirmed the BCI’s authority to hold the examination either before or after enrolment. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangaoorkar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 816– 817 of 2022, order dated 15.03.2022), a Monitoring Committee comprising eminent jurists and Vice-Chancellors of National Law Universities was constituted to ensure transparency and fairness in the conduct of AIBE-XIX. The said Committee, in its meeting dated 25.02.2025, after examining the report of the Sub-Committee dated 21.02.2025, resolved to accept the deletion of seven questions (Nos. 4, 5, 14, 25, 52, 57, 69) and modification of three questions (Nos. 13, 75, 97), as per expert recommendations, in view of detected ambiguity and duplication in the question paper. It was submitted that, accordingly, the 6 final answer key dated 06.03.2025 and the result declared on 21.03.2025 were issued based on expert-approved corrections. The qualifying percentage was re-calculated on the basis of 93 effective questions, maintaining 45% for General/OBC and 40% for SC/ST/Disabled candidates, as recommended by the Monitoring Committee. Thus, the decision was taken collectively, transparently, and in conformity with academic standards, not unilaterally by the BCI. The learned counsel further argued that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as the qualifying criteria were uniformly applied across all candidates nationwide. It was emphasized that the examination being of national character, individual grievances arising from minor corrections cannot invalidate the entire process. Referring to Ranjeet Singh & Others v. Bar Council of India (Writ Petition (S) Civil No. 334/2024, order dated 09.07.2024), it was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently declined to interfere with the BCI’s discretion in academic matters concerning AIBE, holding that grace marks or deletions are matters within expert domain. As to the allegation of “commercialization,” it was submitted that the objection fee of ₹500 was introduced by the Monitoring Committee on 03.03.2024 to discourage frivolous objections, with a clause for refund if any objection was found valid. The process, therefore, is both reasonable and justified. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the petition is devoid of merit, as it seeks to question academic and expert determinations duly approved by statutory committees and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner’s claim of loss of marks is unfounded and based on misconstruction of facts. The Bar Council of India, it was 7 contended, has acted within its powers, in bona fide manner, and strictly in accordance with law. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed that the writ petition be dismissed as misconceived and devoid of substance. 4. No representation is made on behalf of Respondent No.2. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Upon hearing the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondent – Bar Council of India – and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the All India Bar Examination-XIX was conducted strictly in accordance with the statutory powers conferred upon the Bar Council of India under Sections 7 and 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Rules framed thereunder. The process of deletion of seven questions and correction of three answers was undertaken pursuant to the recommendations of the expert Monitoring Committee comprising former Hon’ble Judges and Vice-Chancellors of National Law Universities, and was uniformly applied to all candidates across the country. 7. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College (2023), Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangaoorkar (2022), Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2013), and Arunachal Pradesh PSC v. Hage Mamung (2023) have been duly followed by the respondent, ensuring that defective questions were deleted and marks proportionately adjusted. 8 No material has been placed on record to establish any arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural irregularity in the conduct of AIBE-XIX. The contention of the petitioner regarding commercialization or negative marking is found to be misconceived, as the examination process was duly regulated and transparent. 8. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petition lacks merit and does not disclose any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Ashu