The Supreme Court of India has officially announced that the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Examination 2025 will be held on June 16, 17, 20, and 21, 2025. A detailed notice regarding the exam dates, entry protocols, and sitting arrangements was published on the Supreme Court’s website.

“Candidates are requested to report at their respective examination venue well in advance each day of the examination as per the scheduled time mentioned in the admit card,”
— Supreme Court Notice dated 13 June 2025

Entry Instructions

Candidates must enter through Gate Nos. 1, 2, or 3 of the Administrative Buildings Complex as indicated on their admit cards.

“Candidates having valid parking sticker affixed on their vehicle issued by the Registry of Supreme Court will be allowed to enter through Gate No. 3 only,”
— Kuntal Sharma Pathak, OSD & Secretary, Board of Examiners, AoR Exam

It is important to note that no parking arrangements will be available for those without a valid parking sticker. The Court will also not be responsible for the security of personal belongings.

Sitting Plan Details

The exam will be conducted at various locations inside the Administrative Buildings Complex, covering multiple floors across Block A and Block C. A total of 1,575 candidates are scheduled to appear. The candidates have been distributed as follows:

• Judges Library, Ground Floor, Block A: Roll Nos. 1 to 563
• Judges Library, First Floor, Block A: Roll Nos. 564 to 767
• Judges Library, Second Floor, Block A: Roll Nos. 768 to 909
• Judges Library, Third Floor, Block A: Roll Nos. 910 to 1000
• Second Floor, Block C: Roll Nos. 1001 to 1120
• Third Floor, Block C: Roll Nos. 1121 to 1210
• Fourth Floor, Block C: Roll Nos. 1211 to 1383
• Yoga Hall, Fourth Floor, Block A: Roll Nos. 1384 to 1575

Each floor has been assigned a specific range of roll numbers, and seating has been planned accordingly to manage the large number of candidates appearing.

“The sitting plan is enclosed herewith for the convenience of the candidates appearing in the said examination,”
— Official Notice, Supreme Court of India

Candidates are urged to carefully check their admit cards for roll numbers and venue details and to arrive early to avoid last-minute hassles.

The Allahabad High Court, while hearing during vacation, rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea on Friday that had sought a stay on the declaration of NEET-UG 2025 results. The petition also requested the quashing and re-conduct of the Physics section of the entrance paper.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Saurabh Lavania and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi dismissed the PIL filed by Deenbandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan. A detailed order in the matter is still awaited.

Read Also:- Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Scheduled for June 16–21: Check Venue, Entry Gates, and Sitting Plan

The plea, presented through Advocates Moti Lal Yadav and Arti Rawat, alleged several irregularities in the Physics section of the NEET-UG 2025 examination held on May 4, 2025. It claimed that many questions were either wrong, beyond the prescribed syllabus, or directly copied from private coaching material without proper vetting.

It was further stated that the questions lacked academic accuracy and were absurd or irrelevant, thus compromising the fairness of the exam. The petition emphasized that such questions were never part of the official NEET syllabus and gave undue benefit to aspirants trained by specific coaching institutes.

Read also:- Law Student Urges Kerala High Court to Enforce Animal Birth Control Rules After Stray Dog Bite Incident

"That the inclusion of such an Out of Syllabus Question can never be out of Ignorance of the Paper Setter or by chance but might have been taught by some Coaching Institutes, and as such the aspirants of such Coaching Institutes will certainly be befitted out of it," the plea argued.

The PIL also criticized the alleged lack of transparency in the evaluation process. It pointed out that the answer sheets were not disclosed to the candidates, creating disparities in results. The petition argued that every candidate holds the fundamental right to access and review their answer sheets in comparison with others.

Read Also:- Kerala High Court Detains MSC Manasa F After Cashew Exporter Sues Over MSC Elsa 3 Shipwreck Loss

Additionally, the plea sought a direction for the full publication of NEET-UG results so that candidates could compare their performance in a transparent manner.

Another significant claim in the plea was the unusual concentration of top scorers from particular districts like Sikar in Rajasthan and Namakkal in Tamil Nadu, suggesting possible manipulation or irregularities in the exam conduct or scoring patterns.

Advocate Indrajeet Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, represented the State of Uttar Pradesh. Advocate Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi appeared on behalf of the Director General of Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh.

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar has clarified that to invoke Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), mere use of criminal force against a woman is not sufficient—there must be a clear intent or knowledge to outrage her modesty.

While quashing an FIR registered under Sections 354 and 447 IPC, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed:

“Intent to outrage or the knowledge that by the offending act the accused would outrage modesty of the victim woman is basic ingredient of offence under Section 354 of IPC.”

Read Also:- Kerala High Court Slaps ₹50,000 Cost on South Indian Bank for Illegally Holding Client's Title Deeds Post Loan Closure

The case was filed by Raja Asif Farooq and another petitioner, challenging FIR No. 266/2020 registered in Srinagar. The FIR was filed by a 70-year-old woman who alleged that while working on agricultural land, her nephews obstructed her, verbally abused her, and one of them pushed her, causing her to fall and dislodge her headgear. She claimed this amounted to outraging her modesty.

The petitioners, however, argued that the FIR was filed as retaliation during a long-standing civil property dispute. They presented evidence showing co-ownership of the land and multiple civil and revenue court orders, including an injunction against construction. They alleged the FIR was used to pressurize them during litigation.

Read also:- Delhi High Court Sets Clear Rules for Sentence Review Board on Premature Release of Prisoners

The Court conducted a detailed legal analysis. Referring to Supreme Court precedents like Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill and Attorney General v. Satish, the Court stressed that:

“An assault or use of criminal force to a woman simplicitor unaccompanied by a state of mind to outrage modesty of such woman cannot be termed as an offence under Section 354 of IPC.”

Justice Dhar considered the familial relationship between the parties and the complainant’s advanced age, stating:

“It is difficult to conceive that the petitioners intended to outrage the modesty of their septuagenarian aunt. Nothing in the complaint or investigation remotely suggests such intent.”

Read Also:- Kerala High Court Orders Expedited Disposal of Seized Buffalo Meat to Avoid Perishability

On the issue of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC, the Court found that no land demarcation was done and ongoing civil proceedings had already ordered the parties to maintain status quo. Thus, no offence of trespass could be established.

“Unless it is shown that the property, upon which trespass is committed, is in possession of the victim and not the offender, criminal trespass cannot be established.”

Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Reiterates Section 15 of Rent Control Act Is Directory, Not Mandatory

The Court also expressed concern over the growing misuse of criminal law in civil disputes:

“The complainant, with a view to settle a civil dispute, has resorted to lodging of the impugned FIR against the petitioners. The same is nothing but an abuse of process of court, which needs to be curbed.”

In conclusion, finding no prima facie case under Sections 354 or 447 IPC, the Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings, ruling that continuing criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

“Continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in these circumstances, would amount to abuse of process of law.”

Case Title: Raja Asif Farooq Vs UT of J&K