AOR Exam 2026 Cancellation Challenged In Supreme Court; Petition Calls Move ‘Arbitrary’, Violative Of Rights

The petition filed through AoR Mandeep Kalra assails a notice dated April 30, 2026, issued by the Registrar (Judicial) and Secretary, Board of Examiners, which stated that the AOR examination would not be conducted this year “in view of the overall strength of the AORs,” and that the next examination is only “likely” in 2027.

The petitioners are advocates who appeared in the 2025 AOR examination and cleared three out of four papers, falling within the category of candidates governed by Regulation 11(i) of the AOR Examination Regulations. Under this provision, such candidates are entitled to reappear in the remaining paper in the immediately succeeding examination cycle.

Arguing that they form a distinct class, the petitioners contend that the impugned notice has abruptly halted an ongoing qualification process, leaving them “midway” despite having substantially completed the examination. They submit that the cancellation effectively creates a gap of over two years, contrary to the established practice of holding the exam at least once annually.

The plea asserts that the notice violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution by treating unequal categories of candidates alike. It argues that candidates who have nearly completed the qualification process cannot be equated with fresh applicants or those who failed entirely.

“The impugned notice collapses distinct classes into a single homogeneous category without any intelligible differentia,” the petition states, adding that the justification based on the “overall strength” of existing AORs bears no rational nexus to the purpose of a qualifying examination, which is to assess competence rather than regulate numbers.

The petitioners further argue that the decision introduces a de facto cap on the number of AORs without any statutory backing under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 or the governing regulations. They contend that such a restriction is impermissible and contrary to settled law.

Relying on precedents including V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, the petition submits that conditions affecting entry into the legal profession must have a clear statutory basis. It also cites Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court to argue that rules of an examination process cannot be altered midway to the prejudice of candidates.

A key plank of the challenge is the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The petitioners submit that both the regulatory framework and long-standing practice created a clear expectation that the next examination cycle would be held in 2026, allowing them to complete the remaining paper. This expectation, they argue, crystallised upon declaration of results in February 2026. It further states that many candidates structured their professional commitments around this expectation, with some even leaving employment to prepare for the final paper.

The plea also alleges violation of principles of natural justice, pointing out that the decision was taken without prior notice, consultation, or opportunity of hearing. It terms the impugned notice as “non-speaking” and lacking any disclosed data or reasoning to justify the abrupt cancellation.

According to the petition, the decision has left candidates in an “unprecedented and unfair limbo,” affecting their professional advancement, livelihood, and right to practice before the Supreme Court.

The petition seeks quashing of the notice to the extent it applies to Regulation 11(i) candidates and urges the Court to permit them to appear in the remaining paper in 2026, arguing that failure to do so would result in grave and continuing injustice.