"We Have Got The Most Sympathetic Chief Justice": Supreme Court Asks Aspiring AORs To Approach Chief Justice Over Exam Postponement

The Supreme Court has heard a series of petitions filed by advocates challenging the postponement of the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) examination.

The bench permitted the petitioners to submit an exhaustive representation to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), requesting that the matter be considered sympathetically.

The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale observed, "Having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by directing the petitioners to submit a comprehensive and exhaustive representation to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. In the event of such a representation being filed, we see no reason as to why the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India would not consider it sympathetically, taking into consideration the grievances addressed in the respective representations being filed, or if already filed...With these observations, the petitions stand disposed of.”

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for the Petitioners.

The Court said, "We have got the most sympathetic Chief Justice. The present petitions have been filed by ten advocates challenging the notification issued by the Supreme Court of India for not conducting the AOR examination for the present year, that is, the 2026 cycle, and postponing it to 2027. The postponement to the next calendar year is on the ground of the overall strength of the AORs is sufficient or is more than required at present."

It was contended by the Petitioners that since many of the advocates had qualified in the examination conducted in 2025 as per Regulation 11 of the Supreme Court Rules and Regulations, they are eligible and entitled to participate in the next consecutive examination to be held. By virtue of the impugned notification, the right which has crystallized in their favor would get truncated or frustrated on account of the postponement of the examination; as such, they are seeking appropriate reliefs as prayed for in the respective writ petitions, they added.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the requirement for Advocates-on-Record was a fundamental part of the constitutional scheme. He noted that while individual representations had already been made, the petitioners approached the Court because they viewed the Supreme Court Registry and its committees as public authorities subject to judicial scrutiny. He specifically cited Order IV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, which mandates that only qualified AORs hold the exclusive right to represent litigants before the apex court.

Justice Aravind Kumar said, “We permit you to submit an exhaustive representation to the Hon’ble CJ, and we request the CJ to consider it sympathetically.”

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted, “The requirement of the Advocates-on-Record is provided under the constitutional scheme. Now, representations—individual representations—have been made. There is an association also for the purpose of making them. Now, as far as we are concerned, I am not treating the Supreme Court Registry and the Supreme Court’s committee as different from any other authority in this country, which is why we have approached the Court. As far as we are concerned, what we do see is this: under the scheme, specifically under Order IV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, there is a specific requirement regarding those who can have the audience of this Court and the path to approach this Court, which are only the Advocates-on-Record and nobody else.”

To which Justice Kumar remarked, “We can't deal—we will not deal with this on the judicial side because the committee formed also included three judges.”

Then Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat submitted, “One aspect Your Lordships should consider in this: the permission for training begins one year in advance. Most of these individuals have been training and preparing.”

Justice Kumar responded, “Even on the judicial side, we have to consider whether, suddenly, you can run in this matter.”

The controversy arose after the Supreme Court issued a notification postponing the 2026 AOR exam cycle to 2027. The Registry defended this decision on the grounds that the current strength of Advocates-on-Record was sufficient for the Court's needs.

However, the petitioners argued that under Regulation 11 of the Supreme Court Rules, those who qualified in 2025 had a "crystallized right" to sit for the consecutive exam. They contended that a sudden postponement would frustrate their career progression and waste a year of rigorous study.

The bench expressed confidence that the Chief Justice would consider the grievances of both the eligible candidates and the fresh applicants. With these observations, the Court disposed of the petitions, shifting the decision back to the administrative side of the Supreme Court.

Cause Title: Dania Nayyar and Ors. v. Registrar General And Ors [W.P.(C) No. 582/2026] and Varisha Sharma and Ors. v. Advocates On Record Examination Cell And Ors [W.P.(C) No. 591/2026]