Supreme Court of India Advocate-on-Record Examination June, 2014

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAF.No. AOR Exam/June/2014New Delhi,2 nd April, 2014NOTIFICATION1. Under Rule 5 (i) and (ii) <strong>of</strong> Order IV, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Rules,1966 (as amended)and Regulation (2) <strong>of</strong> the Regulations regarding <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Examination madethereunder governing the Examination for <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record, it is hereby notified forthe information <strong>of</strong> all concerned that the next Examination for the <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Recordwill be held in the <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Premises, New Delhi on 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th and 6 th June,2014.2. All <strong>Advocate</strong>s who will be completing one year's continuous training on or before30 th April, 2014 are eligible to appear for the aforesaid examination.3. Applications should reach the Secretary, Board <strong>of</strong> Examiners, by 1st May, 2014.The application forms may be obtained from the <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> Secretary on any working dayduring <strong>of</strong>fice hours. No application shall be accepted after 1st May, 2014.4. Acceptance <strong>of</strong> the application is subject to production <strong>of</strong> requisite certificate totraining from an <strong>Advocate</strong>-on-Record under Regulation (6) <strong>of</strong> the Regulations regarding<strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Examination.5. In pursuance <strong>of</strong> the directions contained in the Order dated October 12, 2011passed by Hon'ble <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong> in I.A. No.2 <strong>of</strong> 2009 in SLP (C) No. 18481 <strong>of</strong>2009 titled Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary Vs. Suhas Jayant Natwadkar, and as decided by theCompetent Authority, pending the amendment to the Regulations regarding <strong>Advocate</strong>son-RecordExamination, Paper-III for this year shall be "Advocacy & Pr<strong>of</strong>essionalEthics" with maximum marks <strong>of</strong> 100.6. A list <strong>of</strong> leading Cases with regard to Paper-IV 'Leading Cases' is appended to thisNotification as Annexure 'A'.

- 2-7. No application/representation in the nature <strong>of</strong> seeking relief for re-evaluation <strong>of</strong>answer sheets shall be entertained. Application/representation seeking relief other thanin the nature <strong>of</strong> re-evaluation shall not be entertained beyond a period <strong>of</strong> 30 days fromthe date <strong>of</strong> declaration <strong>of</strong> the result.8. In ensuing examinations those' who are given roll numbers and who absentthemselves in examination without assigning reasonable cause in writing will be treated asnot sufficiently prepared & will be dealt with under Regulation 5 (b) without giving furtheropportunity & time may be prescribed within which they shall not appear again forexamination without prior permission <strong>of</strong> The Board <strong>of</strong> Examiners. It has been furtherdecided that all such candidates who remain absent without reasonable cause, may beissued show cause notice to explain why their cases shall not be placed before the Board<strong>of</strong> Examiners for appropriate order.9. The candidates are further informed that the Committee <strong>of</strong> Hon'ble Judges <strong>of</strong> theExamination Committee on the recommendation <strong>of</strong> the Board <strong>of</strong> Examiners havedecided that a candidate who fails in all the papers <strong>of</strong> <strong>Advocate</strong>-on-Record Examinationheld in an year shall not be permitted to appear in the ensuing examination. It wasfurther decided that a candidate may be allowed five chances to appear at theexamination, and those who do not qualify in the desired five chances given, shall notbe permitted to appear in any further examination.Copy to :-1. The Hony. Secretary, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Bar Association with two spare copies forplacing the same on the Notice Board.2. The President, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Association,<strong>Supreme</strong><strong>Court</strong> Compound with two spare copies for placing on the Notice Board.3. P.S. to the Registrar (J-I).4. P.S. to the Registrar (J-II).5. P.S. to the Registrar (J-III).5. P.S. to the Addl. Registrar (Record Room).6. Branch Officer, Record Room. :?1t.(L':) ~~IJ .. L 0Jtl i; l.i.,/'Technical Director, NIC +ri v-plOQ~O .8. B.a. (Cash) .K. Hanjura)REGISTRAR & SECRETARY BOARDOF EXAMINERS

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANew Delhi, 2nd April, 2014NOTICE (I)In the Regulations regarding <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Examination published inthe Notification No. G.S.R. 308 dated pt March 1966, the syllabus for the paper inDrafting is given as follows:-1. Petitions for Special Leave and Statements <strong>of</strong> Cases, etc.2. Decrees & Orders and Writs, etc.This is to clarify that the syllabus includes petitions <strong>of</strong> appeal, plaint andwritten statement in a suit under Article 131 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution, review petitionsunder Article 137 transfer petitions uls 25 <strong>of</strong> the Civil Procedure Code, Article 139<strong>of</strong> the Constitution <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong> and Section 406 <strong>of</strong> the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973;contempt petitions under Article 129, interlocutory applications including criminalmiscellaneous petitions for bail, condonation <strong>of</strong> delay, exemption from surrender,applications for revocation <strong>of</strong> special leave, etc.~REGISTRAR & SECRETARYBOARD OF EXAMINERSCopy to :-1. The Hony. Secretary, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Bar Association with two spare copies forplacing the same on the Notice Board.2. The President, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Association,<strong>Supreme</strong><strong>Court</strong> Compound with two spare copies for placing on the Notice Board.3. P.S. to the Registrar CJ-I).4. P.S. to the Registrar CJ-II).5. P.S. to the Registrar CJ-III).6. P.S. to the Addl. Registrar CRecord Room).7. Branch Officer, Record Room.8. Technical Director, NIC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANOTICE OI)Subject: <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Examination - June 2014Paper III (Advocacy and Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Ethics)New Delhi, 2nd April, 2014This is for information <strong>of</strong> all concerned that in addition to the booksrecommended in the Regulations regarding <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Examination, thefollowing have also been suggested for reading for Paper -III.candidate.Copy to :-1. The <strong>Advocate</strong>s Act and Cases reported; under the <strong>Advocate</strong>s Actparticularly disciplinary proceedings.2. Cases relating to Contempt <strong>of</strong> <strong>Court</strong> involving <strong>Advocate</strong>s.3. Bar Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong> Rules.4. <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Rules,1966.It will not be the responsibility <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fice to supply any book to any~REGISTRAR & SECRETARYBOARD OF EXAMINERS1. The Hony. Secretary, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Bar Association with two spare copies forplacing the same on the Notice Board.2. The President, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Association,<strong>Supreme</strong><strong>Court</strong> Compound with two spare copies for placing on the Notice Board.3. P.S. to the Registrar (J-I).4. P.S. to the Registrar (J-II).5 P.S. to the Registrar (J-III).6 P.S. to the Add!. Registrar (Record Room).7. Branch Officer, Record Room.8. Technical Director, NIC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANew Delhi, 2 nd April, 2014NOTICE (III)Reg: <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record ExaminationDuring the <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Examination the head notes <strong>of</strong> the LeadingCases (Paper-IV) as printed in the <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Reports will be made available by theRegistry to the candidates in the Examination Hall at the time <strong>of</strong> Examination and thesame should be returned immediately to the invigilators at the end <strong>of</strong> the paper.All the head notes have been separately printed and bound. The candidates arerequested not to spoil by underlining or putting any mark anywhere on the head notes asthey are to be used in the future also.Copy to:-~REGISTRAR & SECRETARYBOARD OF EXAMINERS1. The Hony. Secretary, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Bar Association with two spare copies forplacing the same on the Notice Board.2. The President, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Association,<strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong>Compound with two spare copies for placing on the Notice Board.3. P.S. to the Registrar (J-I).4. P.S. to the Registrar (J-II).5. P.S. to the Registrar (J-III).6. P.S. to the Add!. Registrar (Record Room).7. Branch Officer, Record Room.8. Technical Director, NIC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANew Delhi, 2 nd April, 2014NOTICE (IV)Results <strong>of</strong> the last <strong>Advocate</strong> on Record Examination have been declared.Candidates who fall under Regulations 11 (i) & 11 (ii) are informed that although they havethe permission to appear in the subsequent examination in one Paper only, this would beat their option and such candidates may be entitled if they so choose to appear in theentire examination afresh. The option will have to be finally exercised by the candidate atthe time <strong>of</strong> filing <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>orma application for subsequent examination & the same will bebinding on the candidate.For information Regulation 11 (i) & 11 (ii) are reproduced:-Regulation 11 (i) :"A candidate, who fails to obtain 50 per cent in one paper only butobtains 40 per cent in that paper and also obtains 60 per cent in theaggregate in the remaining papers, shall be allowed to appear inthat paper at anyone subsequent examination on payment <strong>of</strong> thefull examination fee and he shall be declared to have passed the<strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Examination if the marks obtained by him atthe subsequent examination taken with the marks obtained in theremaining papers at the earlier examination are 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> theaggregate marks in all the papers.Regulation 11 (m:A candidate who passes in all the papers at any single examinationbut fails to obtain 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> the marks in the aggregate may,with the previous permission <strong>of</strong> the Examination Committee and onthe payment <strong>of</strong> the full examination fee. appear at anyonesubsequent examination in one <strong>of</strong> the papers only in which he hasobtained less than 60 per cent marks and shall be declared to havepassed the <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Examination if the marks obtainedby him at the subsequent examination taken with the marksobtained in the remaining paper at the earlier examination are 60per cent <strong>of</strong> the aggregate marks in all the papers."

- 2-The candidates are further informed that in ensuing examinations those who aregiven roll number and who absent themselves in examination without informing sufficientreasons to the Secretary in writing will be treated as not sufficiently prepared and will bedealt with under Regulation 5(b) without giving further opportunity, and time may beprescribed within which they shall not present themselves again for examination exceptwith prior permission <strong>of</strong> the Chairman <strong>of</strong> Board <strong>of</strong> Examiners. Regulation 5 (b) reads asunder:-5(b) " If the Committee on the recommendation <strong>of</strong> the Board<strong>of</strong> Examiners, is <strong>of</strong> the opinion that a candidate has notsufficiently prepared himself for the examination they mayprescribe a time within which he shall not present himselfagain for examination."The candidates are further informed that theExamination Committee <strong>of</strong> theHon'ble Judges on the recommendation <strong>of</strong> the Board <strong>of</strong> Examiners have decided that acandidate who fails in all the papers <strong>of</strong> AOR Examination shall not be permitted to appearin the next examination.It was further decided that a candidate may be allowed fivechances to appear at the examination, and those who do not qualify in the desired fivechances given, shall not be permitted to appear in any further examination.~REGISTRAR & SECRETARYBOARD OF EXAMINERSCopy to :-1. The Hony. Secretary, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Bar Association with two spare copies forplacing the same on the Notice Board.2. The President, <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>Advocate</strong>s-on-Record Association,<strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong>Compound with two spare copies for placing on the Notice Board.3. P.S. to the Registrar (J-I).4. p.s. to the Registrar (J-II).5. P.S. to the Registrar (J-III).6. P.S. to the Add!. Registrar (Record Room).7. Branch Officer, Record Room.8. Technical Director, NIC

'ANNEXURE-A'REVISED LIST OF LEADING CASES1. T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State <strong>of</strong> Karnataka (2002) 8 see 481: AIR 2003 se 3552. P.A. Inamdar v. State <strong>of</strong> Mahadshtra: 2004 (8) see 139I3. Minerva Mills v. Union <strong>of</strong> Indi (1980) 3 see 6254. S.R. Bommai v UOl: 1994 (3) ee 15. L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI: 1991> (1) see 4.00I6. <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>Advocate</strong>-on-reLrd Association v. DOl 1993 (4) SCC 4417. Samsher Singh v. State <strong>of</strong> Punjab: 1974 (2) see 8318. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa: 1978 (2) see 2139. Maneka Gandhi v. UOl: 1978 (1) see 24810. A.R Antulay v. R.S. Nayak: 1988 (2) sec 60211. Rupa Ashok Burra v. Ashok Burra: 200L: (4) see 38812. Indra Sawhney v. UOI: 1992 Supp (3) see 217--.2-13. Vishaka v. State <strong>of</strong>RaJasthan: 1997 (6) sec 241-·. i & .14. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. <strong>India</strong>n Institute <strong>of</strong> Chemical Biology: 2002 (5) see 11115. SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg: Ltd.: 2005 (8) see 618

- 2 -16. LR Coelho v. State <strong>of</strong>Tamil Nadu: 2007 (2) see 117.. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOT: 2008 (6) see 118.CBSE v. Aditya BandOpadhyaJ: 2011 (8) see 497r,19. Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. Sate <strong>of</strong> Kam,ltaka: 2008 (13) see 767.20. Nandini Sundar v. State <strong>of</strong>eh ttisgarh: 2011 (13) see 4621. Selvi v. State <strong>of</strong>Kamataka: 2 10 (7) sec 26322. Amarinder Singh v. Punjab V'dhan Sabha: 2010 (6) see 113., :I23. State <strong>of</strong> West Bengal v. Corrimittee for the Protection <strong>of</strong> Democratic Rights: 2010 (3)see 57124. Kihota Hollohan v. Zachillhu: 1992 SUPl> (2) see 65125. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. UOI: 2012 (2) SeALE 18026.1n re:Special Reference No.1 <strong>of</strong>2012 2012 (10) see 127.Mafatalal Industries Ltd. v.Union <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong>, (1997) 5 see 53628.VodafoI1e International Holdings BV v. Union <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong>, (2012) 6 see 613" ' ' I, ' 'j- . :' ..~29'zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State' <strong>of</strong> Gujarat, (2"04) 4 sec 158..30.Malay Ku'mar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 see 221~--",

- 3-.31.M. Nagaraj v. Union Of<strong>India</strong> (2006) 8 see 21232.Aruna Rama~handra Shanbhaug v. Union Of<strong>India</strong> (2011) 4'SCe 45433.Sangeet v. State <strong>of</strong> Haryana (2q13) 2 see 45.III34.Society for Unaided Private Schools <strong>of</strong>Rajasthan v. Union Of <strong>India</strong> (2012) 6 see 135.S.P. Gupta v. Union <strong>of</strong><strong>India</strong> J82 (2) SCR 365. I36.Kharak Singh 1964 (1) seR 31237. D.K. Basu v. State <strong>of</strong>West BJngal1997 (1) see 416.38.Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong> 1996 (5) see 64739. Naga People's movements <strong>of</strong> Human Rights v. UOI 1998 (2) see 10940. State <strong>of</strong> Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damo~ar Ruparwate 2010 (7) see 39841. Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Ccrporation 1989 (4) see 15542. Ms. Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank <strong>of</strong>Jndia 1999 (2) see 22843. Danial Latiti v. Union <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong> 2001 (7) see 74044. D.S. Nakara v. Union <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong> 1983 (1) ~:CC 30?-:r.1 .