1. Whether the petition is admissible?

Sindian Legal Service Centre has filed a writ petition concerning degree standards, eligibility,
and the constitutionality of recent amendments and rules, it is appropriate for the Supreme
Court to hear the matter under Article 32. The court will evaluate whether these
amendments and rules violate any fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of
Sindia.
The Bar Council's physical inspection requirement for recognition of institutions conflict with
the constitutional federal structure.
The petitioner instituted proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a
declaration that the fees charged by the BCS at the time of enrolment violate Section 24(1)
(f) of the Advocates Act,1961.

2. Whether the amendment mandating All Sindia Bar Examination clearance for
enrolling as an Advocate is valid?
Instead of setting roadblocks to legal practice in the name of ‘competence’, the BCI must
make attempts to refine Indian legal education. it is important to understand that
‘competence’ and ‘acumen’ are two very different things. A student’s legal acumen can
be judged using a test, whereas one's ‘competence’ as an advocate can only be judged
after intensive exposure and equal opportunities to all, therefore making it an impossible
metric to set. Coming to legal acumen, the need for a further assessment after long
intensive study is a mockery of the Indian legal education system. Instead of setting
roadblocks to legal practice in the name of ‘competence’, the Bar Council of India (BCI)
must make attempts to refine Indian legal education.
AIBE brings with it more challenges than just these. After having invested five or six years
for a law degree, students are still at a crossroads and are required to deposit an
additional fee for appearing in the examination. Many law graduates with humble
backgrounds can’t afford to pay so much fees. Recently, the Madras High Court
dismissed a plea seeking to reduce the application fee for the AIBE which is conducted by
the BCI. The decision was made by Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice GR
Swaminathan. The AIBE imposes additional costs such as registration fees, study
materials and potential expenses related to repeated attempts at the examination. Not
only does the exam delay a graduate's entry into the legal profession, but it also further
burdens them with added financial stress.
The mandatory clearance of the All-Sindia Bar Examination (AIBE) for enrollment as an
advocate discriminatory toward law graduates.
In the case of Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors.2, the question of
charging exorbitant fees for the registration of law graduates as advocates in accordance
with the mandate of the Advocates Act 1961 is being highlighted by the Court, while
 dealing with the issue of BCI’s authority to conduct a pre-enrolment examination for the
enrolment of advocates.
Violation Article 19(1)(g)
The increase in enrollment fees to ₹20,000 and ₹5,000 for state and central bar councils,
respectively, create unreasonable financial barriers for marginalized groups.
3. Whether the amendments made to the Advocates Act, 1961, are arbitrary?
The Bar Council's regulation of legal education violates the distribution of powers under the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution (Union and State Lists)
The amendment to Section 24(f) of the Advocates Act contravene the Supreme Court
judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of Sindia, which capped enrollment fees at ₹600. Section
24(1)(f) expressly prescribes the enrolment fee chargeable by the SBCs and the BCI for
persons to be admitted as an advocate. SBCs are charging exorbitant enrolment fees, often
under different heads, in derogation of Section 24(1)(f); b. Once there is a specific provision
prescribing enrolment fees, the SBCs or the BCI through their delegated rule-making power
cannot charge fees beyond the substantive provision. Therefore, the BCI and the SBCs
cannot invoke their powers to frame rules under Section 49(1) and Section 28(1) of the
Advocates Act respectively to prescribe enrolment fees that are at variance with Section
24(1)(f).
The legal profession serves as an essential thread in the intricate web of justice
administration, tying the arguments, facts, and evidence together to provide fair results. The
discourse surrounding the Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors. case made
clear that the outrageous fees demanded by State Bar Councils for enrolment of advocates
present a significant barrier to the overarching principles of fairness, equity, and accessibility
that form the basis of our legal system. The Advocates Act, 1961, a piece of legal
architecture, aims to maintain the health of the Indian legal community. However, the
burgeoning issue of high enrolment fees has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the
Act and its consistency with the values it purports to maintain. The tension between
preserving the integrity of the legal profession and promoting diversity calls for a
sophisticated understanding - a delicate balance measured on the scales of justice.
The exclusion of other law-related degree programs violate the fundamental right to
education under Article 21A.
The amendments compatible with the constitutional mandate of Article 19(1)(g), ensuring
the right to practice any profession.
It is also contrary to the fundamental rights of an advocate to practise which has been
enshrined under Article 19(1) (g) read with Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 as has
been illustrated in N.K Bajpai v. Union of India.
4. Whether the rules pertaining to uniform standards by the Bar Council of Sindia are
violating or exceeding constitutional limits and principles?