The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a practicing Advocate, seeking direction to the respondents Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to install Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) or temporary cameras in the exam centres of All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and to issue Certificate of Practice within 30 days of declaration of results to the address of successful candidates in accordance with the provisions laid down in Rule 11(1) of the notification dated 05.06.2010.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar passed this order while hearing a PIL filed by Prateek Shukla.
Further directions have been sought to declare AIBE an open book examination.
Submission has been made that AIBE exams are held to grant the Certificate of Practice, which is a national level examination. The Bar Council of India examines the ability of the Advocates’ capability to practice the profession of law in India through the said exams.
Submission has been made that the examination is a closed book examination, which is highly unjust. Allegations have been made that difficulties in monitoring the exams are cropping up every year, resulting in withholding results in different districts in India and that there is no mechanism to decide who was cheating and who was not and based on mere allegation in some examination centres results have been withheld.
Further submission has been made that Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961 indicates the function of the respondents, which inter alia includes promote and support law reform and for the purpose of improving the status and standard of advocacy, which is part of law reform, proper arrangement for conducting the examinations and curb the malpractices should be made and for that purpose the respondents be directed to install the CCTV cameras in the examination centres.
Further submission has been made indicating that unless by holding examinations under gaze of CCTV cameras are held, those who were incompetent, cannot be excluded, resulting in deterioration of quality of the Bar and therefore, direction in this regard be issued.
Counsel for the respondents contested the submissions made by the petitioner. Submission has been made that all precautions to check the malpractices are taken by the respondent. The petition is based on assumption and presumption and only with reference to certain newspaper cuttings, which also pertain to the year 2019. The examinations are held every year and there have been no further instances of the said alleged malpractices. It has been prayed that the petition be dismissed.
The Court noted that though the petition has been couched indicating laudable objects. However, apparently the same has been filed without any empirical data and reliance has been placed on instances of the year 2019 and some social media reports. Irrespective of lack of material, the direction sought for installing CCTV cameras is based on a perception that all centres where the AIBE exams are held, malpractices happened and those who are law graduates, indulge in such practice. Such generalisation for the purpose of seeking relief cannot be countenanced.
“It appears that the petitioner had made a similar petition in the year 2021, which was withdrawn by him, without seeking any liberty and again after lapse of about three years, the petition has been filed, without indicating any change in circumstances and/or the fresh cause of action so as to approach this Court again, as such on this count also the petition merits dismissal.
Further directions sought in the petition pertaining to the issue of the Certificate of Practice and declaring the exams as an open book examination have been sought without laying any foundation in the petition and therefore, the pleas raised in those regard cannot be examined.
In view of the above discussions, no case for issuing directions, as sought in the petition, purportedly in public interest, is made out”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.