Supreme Court Disposes Pleas Against Cancellation of 2026 AoR Exam, Directs Representation To CJI
Supreme Court directed candidates to submit a consolidated representation to the Chief Justice of India
The Supreme Court on Monday disposed of petitions challenging the cancellation of the 2026 Advocates-on-Record (AoR) Examination, directing aggrieved candidates to submit a consolidated representation to the Chief Justice of India for consideration.
The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale noted that several candidates, including those who had qualified in the 2025 AoR examination, had alleged that the cancellation of the next consecutive exam had frustrated their right to appear under the applicable rules. Fresh aspirants also argued that they had already invested significant time in preparation, claiming their efforts had “gone down the drain.”
During the hearing, the Court was informed that multiple representations had already been submitted to the CJI regarding the cancellation of the 2026 examination. The Bench observed that “the ends of justice would be met” if the petitioners compiled all grievances into a single, comprehensive representation addressed to the CJI.
“We see no reason why it would not be considered sympathetically,” the Court said, while making it clear that it was not inclined to entertain the matter on the judicial side. Petitioners were directed to submit the consolidated representation within 10 days.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the Supreme Court Rules contemplate remedies for AoR candidates and argued that different categories of candidates were affected under the regulatory framework. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat highlighted that preparation for the AoR examination begins well in advance and that candidates had undergone rigorous training.
Justice Kumar remarked on the large number of applicants, saying, “There are a number of AoRs,” prompting a light exchange in court. When counsel pointed out that candidates had narrowly missed qualifying marks, the Bench responded that such shortfalls would still amount to failure.
Senior Advocate Uday Singh also submitted that some candidates had cleared all but one paper and were affected by the cancellation, arguing that the rules permitted reappearance in consecutive examinations.
During the course of arguments, Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan suggested that one possible resolution could be to simply defer the examination next year. The Bench, however, reiterated its confidence in institutional resolution, stating that the Chief Justice would consider the matter appropriately. "We’ve got the most sympathetic Chief Justice. We are confident," Justice Kumar remarked.
With these observations, the petitions were disposed of, leaving the issue to be decided administratively by the office of the Chief Justice of India.
One of the petitions 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.
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.
Case Title: Dania Nayyar & Ors. v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India & Ors.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale
Hearing Date: May 11, 2026