NewKerala.com

Delhi HC Dismisses PIL for Negative Marking in AIBE, Backs BCI Policy

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking the introduction of negative marking in the All India Bar Examination. The court stated that decisions regarding the examination pattern fall within the policy domain of the Bar Council of India. The PIL, filed by an advocate, argued that negative marking was necessary to maintain the quality and seriousness of the legal profession. The Bench declined to interfere, noting the BCI had already taken a conscious decision on the matter.

Key Points: Delhi HC Rejects PIL for Negative Marking in Bar Exam

  • Court upholds BCI's policy autonomy
  • PIL sought negative marking for AIBE
  • Aim was to preserve legal profession quality
  • Court refuses to interfere in policy matter
2 min read

Delhi HC dismisses PIL seeking negative marking in AIBE, calls it policy decision of BCI

Delhi High Court dismisses PIL seeking negative marking in AIBE, says exam pattern is a policy decision for the Bar Council of India.

"This is all a policy decision to be taken by the authorities concerned. BCI has taken a decision not to have negative marking. How can we issue such a direction? - Delhi High Court Bench"

New Delhi, February 11

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking the introduction of negative marking in the All India Bar Examination, observing that the issue falls within the policy domain of the Bar Council of India and courts cannot issue directions on such matters.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that the decision regarding the examination pattern is for the concerned authority to take.

"This is all a policy decision to be taken by the authorities concerned. BCI has taken a decision not to have negative marking. How can we issue such a direction?" the Bench remarked while declining to entertain the plea.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by advocate Shannu Baghel seeking directions to the Bar Council of India to introduce negative marking in the AIBE from the upcoming session. The petitioner claimed that the move was necessary to protect and preserve the quality of the legal profession.

According to the petition, the plea was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, raising concerns about the standards of the legal profession and its broader impact on society.

It stated that the AIBE, conducted annually by the BCI for granting permanent enrolment to advocates to practice in courts, including the Supreme Court, High Courts and district courts, plays a crucial role in maintaining professional standards.

The petitioner argued that the quality of legal services has been declining due to issues such as alleged accessibility of degrees through illicit means, LLB courses being conducted in hybrid modes, and instances of fake degrees surfacing on various occasions.

In this backdrop, the plea suggested that introducing negative marking in the AIBE, particularly from the examination scheduled in April 2026, would help ensure seriousness among candidates and maintain the integrity of the profession.

It was further submitted that the petitioner, claiming to be a public-spirited citizen, had approached the court seeking directions to the BCI to implement negative marking in the examination to safeguard the quality of legal practice in the country.

Reiterating that matters relating to examination format and evaluation methods are policy decisions to be taken by the Bar Council of India, the High Court said it cannot interfere where the authority has already taken a conscious decision not to introduce negative marking. The PIL was accordingly dismissed.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
While I understand the petitioner's concern about quality, the court is right. This is a policy matter. The real issue is the fake degrees and lax LLB courses, not the exam pattern. Focus should be on fixing the root cause. 🤔
A
Aman W
As someone who cleared AIBE last year, I'm relieved! Negative marking would have been a nightmare. The exam is tough enough as a qualifying test. The BCI's current system works fine to ensure basic competency.
S
Sarah B
Interesting to see the judicial restraint shown here. In many countries, professional exam patterns are strictly the domain of the regulating body. The court respecting that boundary is a good precedent.
K
Karthik V
With all due respect to the court's reasoning, I think the petitioner had a point. The legal profession's standards *are* declining. Maybe negative marking isn't the answer, but we need stricter filters. Too many lawyers, not enough quality.
N
Nisha Z
Fully agree with the dismissal. PIL culture is sometimes misused for personal agendas. If every citizen starts filing PILs on exam patterns, our courts will get clogged. Let the experts at BCI do their job. 👍

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50