Complete guide to AOR exam question papers with past years analysis, paper-wise strategies, marking schemes, and preparation tips to clear this tough exam.

What is the syllabus and paper format of the AOR exam question papers?

Let me walk you through the complete structure of the AOR examination because understanding this framework is foundational to using past papers effectively. The exam consists of four descriptive papers, each worth 100 marks, conducted over four days. You get three hours for each paper (except for the drafting paper in which you get an additional 30 minutes for reading), and unlike multiple choice exams where you can guess your way through some questions, every word you write here matters.

The paper I of the examination was conducted in online mode by Supreme Court in 2024, however the same was cancelled and the Supreme Court reverted to traditional format. All papers are in English, and the descriptive nature means you need strong answer writing skills, not just knowledge. The examiners evaluate your analytical ability, clarity of expression, practical understanding, and command over relevant case law and statutes.

How many papers are included in the AOR exam?

The AOR examination comprises exactly four papers equally carrying 100 marks, each designed to test different competencies essential for Supreme Court practice. 

Paper I is the Practice and Procedure paper it focuses on the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court, testing candidates knowledge of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, jurisdictional aspects, and procedural requirements for various types of cases. This paper evaluates the understanding of fundamental aspects like original jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction, and special leave petition procedures that form the backbone of Supreme Court practice.

Paper II is Drafting paper tests drafting skills by requiring candidates to prepare various legal documents commonly used in Supreme Court practice, including special leave petitions, writ petition, suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India, review petitions, curative petitions, and various applications. This paper evaluates the ability to translate legal issues into properly structured and formatted pleadings that meet Supreme Court requirements. 

Paper III is Advocay and Professional Ethics paper assesses professional ethics, advocacy principles, and conduct standards that govern legal practice, particularly before the Supreme Court. This paper tests the understanding of the Advocates Act 1961, Bar Council of India Rules, and the Supreme Court Rules governing advocate conduct and professional responsibilities.

Paper IV is Leading Cases paper that examines knowledge of landmark judgments that have shaped Indian constitutional and legal jurisprudence, requiring candidates to demonstrate understanding of key principles established by the Supreme Court. This paper tests familiarity with cases like His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala [ SC 1973] , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [ SC 1978], Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.[ SC1981] and other foundational decisions that continue to influence legal practice.

Are AOR exam papers descriptive, objective, or a mix of both?

All four papers are entirely descriptive in nature, which fundamentally changes your preparation strategy compared to objective exams. You won’t find any multiple choice questions, true/false statements, or one-word answers here. Instead, you’ll face long form questions requiring detailed explanations, case law discussions, statutory interpretations, and practical applications of legal principles.

Most questions carry 5, 10, 15 or 20 marks, and you’re expected to write comprehensive answers for 20-mark questions. The examiners look for structured responses with proper headings, relevant case citations, statutory references, and logical flow of arguments. Your handwriting, presentation, use of legal terminology, and ability to connect multiple concepts all impact your final score.

Paper Wise Syllabus of the AOR Exam

What is covered in Paper I: Practice and Procedure?

Paper I focuses entirely on how the Supreme Court functions procedurally. You need comprehensive knowledge of constitutional provisions governing Supreme Court jurisdiction—specifically Articles 32, 129, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 141, 142, 143, and 145, 317  of the Constitution. These aren’t just articles to memorize; you must understand their practical application through relevant case law.

The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 form the backbone of this paper, and you need to know them inside out. Beyond this, the syllabus includes the Code of Civil Procedure (relevant provisions), Limitation Act, 1963, and general principles from the Court Fees Act, 1870. The Supreme Court also has a 280 page Handbook on Practice and Procedure which you must be thorough with for this paper.

Here’s what candidates often underestimate questions on jurisdiction alone have carried nearly 35-50 marks in the 2023 and 2024 exam. Topics like Special Leave Petitions under Article 136, curative petitions, review petitions, writ jurisdiction under Article 32, and powers under Article 142 appear repeatedly. You’ll also face questions on AOR Rules, contempt jurisdiction, transfer petitions, and procedural requirements for different petition types. You can get questions based on factual scenarios under the Arbitration Act, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or other substantive laws.

What is covered in Paper II: Drafting?

Paper II tests your ability to draft various petitions and applications that AORs routinely prepare. The official syllabus mentions:

1. Petitions for Special Leave and Statements of Cases etc. 
2. Decrees & Orders and Writs etc. 

This is to clarify that the syllabus includes petitions of appeal; plaint and written statement in a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India; review petitions under Article 137 of the Constitution of India; transfer petitions under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, Article 139 of the Constitution of India and Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; contempt petitions under Article 129 of the Constitution of India; interlocutory applications including applications for bail, condonation of delay, exemption from surrendering, revocation of special leave etc. 

However, past papers reveal examiners expect familiarity with at least 15-20 different draft types.

What makes this paper tricky is that you need to know not just the format but also the legal grounds, relevant precedents, and procedural requirements for each draft type. You’re typically given a fact pattern and asked to draft an appropriate petition with synopsis, grounds, and prayers. Some questions may ask for specific components like “draft only the grounds” or “prepare a brief synopsis.”

What is covered in Paper III: Advocacy and Professional Ethics?

Paper III covers two interconnected areas advocacy skills and professional ethics governing legal practice. 

The syllabus includes:

1. The concept of a profession; Nature of the legal profession and its purposes; Connection between morality and ethics; Professional Ethics in general:- definitions, general principles, seven lamps of advocacy, public trust doctrine, exclusive right to practice in Court; 
2. History of legal profession in India and relevant statutes. 
3. Law governing the profession and its relevance and scope; professional excellence and conduct. Professional, criminal and other misconduct and punishment for it (Section 35 and 24(A) and other provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and prescribed code of conduct); Duty not to strike; Advertisement/ Solicitation. 
4. The rules of the Bar council of India on the obligations and duties of the profession, need to shun sharp practices and commercialisation of the profession and the role of the Bar in promotion of legal services under the constitutional scheme of providing equal justice. Role of Bar Council in regulating ethics. Bar Council Rules Chapter II Standard of professional conduct and Etiquette. Different duties of an advocate including categories laid down in the Bar Council Rules on ethics. Conflict between duties and law to resolve them. Difference between breach of ethics and misconduct and negligence, misconduct and crime. 
5. Comparative study of the profession and ethics in various countries, and their relevance to the Bar.
6. Perspectives on the role of the profession in the adversary system and critiques of the adversary system vis a vis ethics.
7. Issues of advocacy in the criminal law adversarial system, the zealous advocacy in the criminal defense setting and prosecutorial ethics. 
8. Lawyer client relationship, confidentiality and issues of conflicts of interest (Section 126 of the Evidence Act); Counseling, negotiation and mediation and their importance to administration of justice. Mediation  Ethical Consideration; Amicus Curiae Ethical Consideration.
9. Current developments in the organization of the profession, firms, companies etc. and application of ethics. 
10. Special role of the profession in the Supreme Court practice and its obligations to administration of justice. Adjournments; Duties of Advocate on Record; Supervisory role of the Supreme Court; Contempt of Courts.

Recent examinations have also included questions on commercialization of legal practice, negotiation and mediation ethics, and the special obligations of Supreme Court advocates. You might be asked to analyze ethical dilemmas, distinguish between misconduct and negligence, or discuss recent developments in professional regulation.

What is covered in Paper IV: Leading Cases?

Paper IV is perhaps the most voluminous section, covering 86 (Volume I, Volume II and Volume III) leading constitutional cases specified by the Supreme Court in its official notification. It tests a candidates indepth knowledge of significant Supreme Court judgements specifically their ability to understand the underlined legal principles (ratio decidendi) and their practical application to factual situations.

The list includes landmark judgments that have shaped Indian constitutional law: His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala [ SC 1973] (basic structure doctrine), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [SC 1978] (Article 21 expansion), Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.[ SC 1981] (judicial review), Indra Sawhney and Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. Etc. Etc. [ SC 1992] (reservations), S.R. Bommai and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [SC 1994] (federalism and President’s Rule), Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [ SC 1997] (sexual harassment), Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice [ SC 2018] (Section 377), Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [ SC 2015] (free speech), and dozens more covering every aspect of constitutional law.

If you’re calculating the reading load, these 86 (Volume I, Volume II and Volume III) cases together exceed 2000 pages in the headnotes of Supreme Court judgements. Obviously, you cannot read every page, which is where strategic preparation using past papers becomes essential to identify cases that appear repeatedly in examinations.

Paper Format of AOR Exam Question Papers

What is the paper format in Paper I: Practice and Procedure?

Paper I typically contains a mix of situation based questions, concept based questions, and direct questions on Supreme Court Rules. 

Situation based questions present hypothetical scenarios for example, “X files an SLP against a High Court judgment. The SLP is dismissed. What remedies are available to X? Discuss with reference to relevant provisions and case law.” You need to identify the relevant procedural options (review petition, curative petition) and explain them comprehensively.

Here is an example of situation based from the 2025 paper:

Concept based questions test your understanding of legal principles: “Distinguish between review petition and curative petition,”Explain the scope of Article 142,” or “Discuss the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to transfer cases from one High Court to another.” These require theoretical knowledge combined with practical application through case law. Direct questions ask about specific rules: “What are the requirements for filing a Special Leave Petition under the Supreme Court Rules?” or “Explain the procedure for mentioning an urgent matter before the Supreme Court.”

Here is an example of situation based from the 2025 paper:

Direct questions, these are straightforward recall or procedural queries, asking for definitions, requirements, or step by step processes without scenarios.

Here is an example of situation based from the 2025 paper:

Recent papers, such as the 2025 exam, show 3 long questions of 15 marks each, with 2-3 shorter questions of 10 marks each in some sections, alongside multiple 5 mark questions. Internal choices are provided (e.g., 2 out of 3 or 10 out of 14), and questions are heavily weighted toward jurisdiction (e.g., Articles 136, 142), procedural rules, and frequently filed petition types.

What is the paper format in Paper II: Drafting?

Paper II contains two compulsory parts, Part A and Part B. Part A contains 6 questions, each worth 20 marks, with candidates required to attempt any 4 out of the 6 provided questions. You’ll receive 2-3 pages describing a legal situation, including facts, dates, parties involved, lower court proceedings, legal issues, and specific instructions on what to draft. Part A focuses on drafting petitions or specific components (e.g., synopsis, grounds, prayers) based on detailed legal fact patterns involving various legal scenarios. For example “Draft a petition challenging a High Court judgment in a criminal appeal (State of Bihar vs. Mantu Kumar & Reena Kumar) related to a dowry death case, including cause title, grounds, and prayer(s).”

Here is an example from the 2025 paper:

Part B contains 6 questions, each worth 5 marks, with candidates required to attempt any 4 out of the 6 provided questions. Part B contains question that builds on the drafting skills tested in Part A but may involve a more complex or specialized legal issue. For example “ Draft only the heading/title of the appropriate petition, three best grounds of your case,  prayer(s) of the petition.” 

Here is an example from the 2025 paper:

What examiners evaluate here goes beyond just knowing the format. They check whether you’ve correctly identified the Supreme Court level issue that justifies the chosen petition type, whether your legal grounds are sound and supported by relevant case law, whether you’ve cited appropriate statutory provisions, whether your drafting is clear and legally precise, and whether you’ve followed proper formatting conventions. Many intelligent candidates who practice in lower courts fail this paper because Supreme Court drafting has unique requirements different from High Court or district court practice.

What is the paper format in Paper III: Advocacy and Professional Ethics?

Paper III is a 3 hour descriptive paper focused on advocacy, professional ethics, BCI Rules, Advocates Act, and Supreme Court judgments. Questions are predominantly analytical, requiring explanations with case laws, ethical reasoning, and balanced opinions. It contains 10 questions at 10 marks each (equal marks), with internal choices in 1–2 questions. the format has been largely consistent in recent years, with minor evolutions. The questions are predominantly analytical rather than descriptive. For example: “How do you describe an actionable ‘misconduct’ by a lawyer? Please describe in brief at least five heads of misconduct with reference to cases decided by Supreme Court of India OR What are the duties of an advocate towards Court, Client and Opposite side?”

Here is an example from the 2025 paper:

You might also encounter questions asking for your opinion on ethical dilemmas: “Please explain your views on strike by lawyers for causes like creation of a bench of High Court, crime against lawyers in court premises, filling of vacancies of judges etc. What according to you are effective alternatives to strike by lawyers to avoid suffering for litigants?” 

Recent papers show increased focus on contemporary issues advocates right to strike, social media conduct by lawyers, conflict of interest in corporate law practice, and ethical considerations in public interest litigation. The examiners expect you to cite specific cases, discuss relevant provisions from the Advocates Act and BCI Rules, and present balanced analysis rather than one sided arguments.

What is the paper format in Paper IV: Leading Cases?

Paper IV generally contains 12 questions, divided in two parts: Part A (40 marks) with 4 analytical essay questions, of which candidates must answer any 2 (each carrying 20 marks and limited to 500 words). Part A questions are long form, analytical essays that demand deep understanding of landmark cases, doctrinal shifts, and their broader implications. They often integrate statutory provisions, constitutional principles, and emerging legal issues, requiring a structured argument within the word limit. For example, “Critically examine the evolving role of the judiciary in ensuring environmental accountability in extractive industries with reference to Supreme Court judgments. How has the Supreme Court balanced economic development, environmental protection, and government’s responsibility in this context? Which are the environmental principles that the Supreme Court has judicially evolved in the context of environmental protection? What is the principle of ecocentrism, how does it differ from the earlier environmental principles? Explain with reference to case law.”

Here is an example from the 2025 paper:

Part B (60 marks) with 8 multi part questions, of which candidates must answer any 6 (each carrying 10 marks and limited to 250 words, requiring reference to provisions of law and case law). Part B questions are short answer, multi part queries that test precise application of law and case law to specific issues (e.g., taxation, arbitration, constitutional provisions). They require concise, focused responses with statutory and judicial references, often involving hypothetical or procedural scenarios.

Here is an example from the 2025 paper:

Marking and Evaluation Scheme

How to write answers in each paper?

The evaluation process for AOR exams is rigorous because the examiners are familiar with Supreme Court practice standards. They’re not looking for theoretical excellence alone they want to see practical understanding, professional competence, and analytical ability. 

Let me share what actually works in the examination hall, based on patterns I’ve observed from successful candidates answer scripts.

For Paper I, your answers need proper structure start with a brief introduction stating the legal issue, followed by relevant constitutional provisions, then applicable Supreme Court Rules, supported by 2-3 important case laws, and conclude with practical application or implications. Use headings and subheadings liberally; examiners appreciate organized answers they can scan quickly.

In Paper II, your drafts must look professional. Use clear headings for each section (Synopsis, Grounds, Prayer), number your grounds and prayers, underline key legal phrases, and ensure your cause title follows the exact format used in Supreme Court petitions. Write in formal legal language but avoid being verbose clarity matters more than ornamentation. Most importantly, ensure your legal grounds are substantive and connected to specific statutory provisions or case law.

For Paper III, adopt an analytical approach rather than merely descriptive. Don’t just state what the law says; discuss why it exists, how courts have interpreted it, what tensions exist, and what your reasoned opinion is. Use ethical principles and landmark disciplinary cases to support your arguments. Reference specific provisions from the Advocates Act, BCI Rules, and Contempt of Courts Act with their section numbers. Balance your analysis by acknowledging counter arguments before presenting your conclusion.

Paper IV demands precision and depth. Your answers should cover the court’s reasoning, the ratio decidendi and the judgment’s significance. Examiners specifically reward candidates who demonstrate understanding of the judgment’s place in constitutional jurisprudence rather than just narrating the case.

What is the passing criteria based on previous AOR papers?

The passing criteria for the AOR examination is strictly defined and non negotiable. You must secure a minimum of 50% marks (50 marks out of 100) in each of the four papers individually. Additionally, you must obtain an aggregate of 60% marks (240 marks out of 400) across all four papers combined. Both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously; failing either criterion means you fail the examination.

This dual requirement creates an interesting challenge. Suppose you score 85, 80, and 75 in three papers an excellent performance totaling 240 marks. But if you score only 45 in the fourth paper, you fail the entire examination despite having 285 total marks (71.25% aggregate) because you didn’t achieve 50% in that one paper. Conversely, if you score exactly 50 marks in each paper, you get 200 marks total (50% aggregate), which again results in failure because you haven’t achieved the 60% aggregate requirement.

Why should you study AOR exam question papers before attempting the exam?

Why is it crucial to solve past papers?

Let me be direct with you studying past AOR exam papers isn’t optional if you’re serious about clearing this examination. Here’s why: the AOR exam tests not just what you know, but how you demonstrate that knowledge in a specific format under strict time constraints. Past papers are your only reliable window into what examiners actually expect versus what you think they expect. I’ve seen advocates with 15 years of practice fail this exam because they prepared theoretically without understanding the examination’s practical demands.

When you solve past papers, you quickly discover patterns that years of theoretical study won’t reveal. You’ll notice that questions on curative petitions appear almost every year in Paper I. You’ll see that Paper II almost always includes one SLP drafting question and one interlocutory application. You’ll observe that Paper III repeatedly tests you on the advocate’s duty to court versus duty to client, creating ethical dilemmas. Paper IV shows clear favorites among the 86 (Volume I, Volume II and Volume III) cases some judgments get questioned every 2-3 years with different angles.

Where can I find AOR exam question papers?

Are previous years AOR exam papers officially released by the Supreme Court?

Yes, the Supreme Court of India officially publishes AOR examination question papers from the year 2007 on its website, making them freely accessible to all aspirants. This is a significant advantage compared to many other professional examinations where past papers remain confidential. You can find these papers at the official Supreme Court website under the AOR Examination section at https://www.sci.gov.in/aor-examination/.

The Supreme Court uploads question papers from recent years, and you’ll find papers from at least the last decade available for download in PDF format. Additionally, the website publishes other valuable resources including the list of 86 (Volume I, Volume II and Volume III)  leading cases for Paper IV, study material prepared by senior advocates on professional ethics and procedure, notifications regarding examination schedule and syllabus, and results with candidate roll numbers.

Beyond the official source, several legal education platforms and photocopier shops near the Supreme Court compile and sell collections of past papers, often with additional materials like suggested answers or analysis. However, I recommend starting with the official Supreme Court resources because they’re authentic, free, and comprehensive enough for thorough preparation.

What are the difficulty levels and trends in AOR exam question papers?

Is the AOR exam considered one of the toughest exams for lawyers?

Absolutely yes, and the statistics back this up unequivocally. The AOR examination consistently maintains one of the lowest pass rates among all legal professional examinations in India. 

What makes this exam particularly tough isn’t the complexity of individual questions but the combination of four challenging papers, the dual passing criteria (50% in each paper + 60% aggregate), the strict time limits, and the requirement for Supreme Court specific knowledge that even seasoned litigators may lack.

The examination tests you on approximately 280 pages of Supreme Court Handbook, over 2500 pages of headnotes of leading case judgments, dozens of draft formats, professional ethics across multiple statutes, and procedural knowledge spanning civil and criminal law. You need to recall this vast material accurately under examination pressure and present it in well structured, handwritten answers within fixed time. The limited attempts (only five) and the requirement to clear all papers in the same examination add further pressure.

Which paper has the highest failure rate?

While the Supreme Court doesn’t publish paper wise failure statistics officially, analysis of candidate experiences and examiner feedback suggests that Paper II (Drafting) and Paper IV (Leading Cases) emerge as the most challenging for different reasons. Paper II sees high failure rates because many candidates underestimate the specificity required in Supreme Court drafting. Even advocates who regularly draft for High Courts discover that Supreme Court formats, legal grounds, synopsis requirements, and procedural citations have unique conventions.

I’ve observed that candidates often lose marks in Paper II not because they lack legal knowledge but because their drafts are procedurally flawed. They might draft a writ petition under Article 32 when the facts demand an SLP under Article 136. They might prepare excellent legal arguments but forget to include a proper synopsis or chronology. Their cause titles might not follow Supreme Court formatting. Their grounds might be generic rather than specific. These technical errors cost heavily because examiners evaluate whether your draft would actually work if filed.

Paper IV fails candidates for a different reason sheer volume. Reading 86 (Volume I, Volume II and Volume III)  landmark judgments thoroughly is an enormous task, and many candidates attempt shortcuts like studying headnotes or summaries instead of full judgments. This superficial preparation shows immediately when questions ask about minority opinions, specific observations by particular judges, or the evolution of doctrine across related cases. You cannot bluff your way through questions like “Explain how Justice Bhagwati’s approach in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [SC 1978] differed from the majority opinion and its implications for procedural fairness.”

Paper I (Practice and Procedure) is challenging but manageable if you systematically study Supreme Court Rules and key constitutional provisions. Paper III (Professional Ethics) requires analytical thinking but the question volume is reasonable. Papers II and IV demand the most intensive, specific preparation and consequently see higher failure rates.

What kind of questions are repeated in AOR exam papers?

Certain topics and question types appear repeatedly across years, making them high priority areas for your preparation. In Paper I, questions on jurisdiction dominate expect questions on Special Leave Petitions under Article 136, review petitions under Article 137, curative petitions (following Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr. [SC 2002]), writ jurisdiction under Article 32, transfer petitions, and powers under Article 142. Across the last 10 years, curative petition questions appeared at least 6-7 times with different variations.

In Paper II, certain drafting questions appear almost every year SLP against a High Court order (with variations in subject matter), review petitions based on different grounds and writ petitions under Article 32.

Paper III shows recurring themes around ethical dilemmas: advocate’s duties when client asks for unconscionable action, conflict of interest situations, scope of fair criticism of judicial decisions, professional misconduct versus criminal conduct, advocate’s lien, and the role of Bar Council in regulating professional conduct.

Paper IV clearly favors certain judgments for repeated questioning.His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala [SC 1973] (basic structure), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [SC 1978] (Article 21 expansion), Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr. [SC 2002] (curative petitions), Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [SC 2015] (free speech and Section 66A IT Act), Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [SC 1997]  (sexual harassment), and Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice [SC 2018] (Section 377) have all appeared multiple times across different years. When analyzing past papers, note which cases haven’t been questioned recently they might appear in your exam.

How to use AOR exam question papers for preparation?

When to start solving papers in your preparation timeline?

Don’t make the common mistake of treating past papers as final revision material only. You should engage with previous years question papers from the very beginning of your preparation, but your approach should evolve through different phases. In your initial learning phase (first 2-3 months), use past papers diagnostically scan through them to understand what topics appear frequently, what depth of knowledge questions demand, and what answer length examiners expect. This early exposure shapes your study approach.

During your intensive preparation phase (months 3-6), use past papers as your syllabus guide. As you study each topic say, Article 136 or review petitions immediately look at all past questions on that topic. This shows you exactly what aspects matter for examination purposes versus what’s interesting but rarely tested. Study the topic thoroughly through bare acts and case law, then attempt related past questions to assess your grasp.

In your final 2-3 months before the exam, shift to full paper solving under timed conditions. Attempt complete papers (all questions within three hours) to build stamina, time management, and holistic understanding. This is when you simulate actual examination conditions, identify weak areas requiring focused revision, and develop strategies for choosing questions (when internal choice exists) and managing time across different question types.

Continue solving papers until your examination day. In your final week, solving one full paper daily keeps you sharp and builds confidence.

Is solving previous years papers enough to clear the exam?

No, and this is crucial to understand solving past papers is necessary but not sufficient for clearing the AOR exam. Past papers should complement, not replace, thorough foundational study of the actual source materials. You need to study the Supreme Court Rules 2013 completely, read relevant constitutional provisions with case law, practice drafting from scratch, study professional ethics from primary sources (Advocates Act, BCI Rules), and read the full texts of leading cases.

Think of past papers as your quality check mechanism rather than your sole study material. They tell you what to study (topic prioritization) and how to demonstrate knowledge (answer presentation), but they don’t provide the depth of understanding required. For instance, seeing that curative petition questions appear frequently tells you to prioritize this topic, but actually learning curative petitions requires studying Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr. [SC 2002], understanding Supreme Court Rules on the subject, and practicing drafting curative petitions.

Where past papers become invaluable is in bridging the gap between knowledge and examination performance. You might understand curative petitions perfectly after studying the law, but can you write a complete answer in less time covering all relevant aspects? Can you draft a curative petition in the correct format within the time limit? Can you cite case law accurately from memory? Past paper practice develops these examination specific skills.

The optimal approach combines systematic learning from primary sources with continuous testing through past papers. Study a topic thoroughly from bare acts, commentaries, and judgments. Then attempt all related past questions to see if your study was adequate. If you struggle with questions despite studying, you need to revise with more focus on practical application. If you answer confidently, you’re ready to move to the next topic.

Strategies to Practice with Past Papers

Time management techniques while attempting AOR exam papers

Time management can make the difference between pass and fail in the AOR examination because three hours pass astonishingly quickly when you’re handwriting detailed legal answers. Here’s the framework that works:For a 20 mark question, spend no more than 30-35 minutes including thinking, structuring, and writing. For a 10 mark question, limit yourself to 15-18 minutes.

When you sit for a paper, spend the first 5 minutes reading all questions carefully, deciding which questions you’ll attempt, and planning the sequence. Many candidates waste time reading questions multiple times or changing their mind mid exam about which questions to attempt. Decide once and commit. Most successful candidates attempt questions in the order that maximizes their scoring potential start with questions you’re most confident about to secure those marks early and build momentum.

While writing, if you’re stuck on a question, don’t perseverate. Write what you know, leave space if you plan to add more, and move to the next question. Return to incomplete answers only if time permits after completing all other questions. Better to attempt all required questions reasonably well than to perfect two questions while leaving one completely unattempted.

For Paper II (Drafting), time management is even more critical because drafting takes longer than writing descriptive answers.Practice achieving this time discipline in mock tests initially, you’ll likely overrun, but consistent practice builds speed.

Use the last 10 minutes of each paper for quick review: check that you’ve answered the required number of questions, verify that you’ve numbered questions correctly, ensure your roll number appears on every page, and scan for obvious errors. Don’t attempt major rewriting in these final minutes; focus on catching glaring mistakes like wrong case names or incorrect article numbers.

Importance of mock tests based on past papers

Mock tests serve a completely different purpose than gradual topic wise practice, and you need both for success. While topic-wise practice builds knowledge and competence in individual areas, mock tests simulate the holistic examination experience including time pressure, physical fatigue, mental stamina, and decision making under stress. You cannot replicate these conditions by casually solving questions at your desk with books nearby.

Schedule full length mock tests at least once a week in your final two months. Set aside four consecutive days where you attempt one complete past paper each day for three hours, exactly as you’ll do in the actual examination. Use similar stationery (same pen type, answer sheet format), sit in a quiet place, keep no reference materials nearby, and strictly enforce time limits. This builds the psychological and physical endurance required for four consecutive days of intensive written examination.

Mock tests reveal weaknesses invisible in regular study. You might know curative petitions thoroughly but discover you cannot recall case law accurately under time pressure. You might draft petitions well when relaxed but make formatting mistakes when rushing. You might plan to write 6 page answers but realize your handwriting slows you down. These insights are valuable only if discovered during practice, not during actual examination.

After each mock test, conduct detailed post test analysis. Which questions did you attempt? Which did you skip and why? Where did you spend more time than allocated? Which questions felt comfortable versus difficult? What mistakes did you make? What would you do differently next time? This analysis converts mock tests from mere practice into powerful learning tools. Maintain a journal documenting these insights and track improvement across successive mocks.

Consider joining or forming study groups where you can exchange mock tests with peers for evaluation. Having someone else assess your answers provides perspective you cannot achieve alone. They might point out that your excellent substantive answers lack proper structure, or that you’re citing case law incorrectly, or that your handwriting becomes illegible when writing fast feedback impossible to self generate.

Best Practices for Success

How many past years papers should you solve before the exam?

There’s no magic number, but I’ll give you a realistic target: aim to thoroughly solve question papers from at least the last 7-10 years, which means approximately 10-15 complete examination sets (40-60 individual papers across all four subjects) attempted under timed conditions. This volume ensures you’ve encountered all major question patterns, developed competence in all paper types, and built adequate stamina for the four day examination.

However, solving doesn’t mean just attempting once. Your approach should be iterative attempt a paper, evaluate yourself, identify gaps, study those areas from primary sources, then re-attempt similar questions to confirm improvement. Some candidates solve the same question paper 2-3 times across different phases of preparation, improving each time as their knowledge deepens.

Quality matters more than quantity in paper solving. Attempting 20 papers casually without timed practice, self evaluation, or focused improvement based on performance analysis delivers less value than attempting 8 papers seriously with full simulation, honest self assessment, and targeted follow up study. The goal isn’t to maximize paper count for self satisfaction but to systematically build examination competence.

For Paper IV specifically, where you have 86 (Volume I, Volume II and Volume III) cases to cover, ensure you’ve attempted questions on at least 40-45 of these cases during preparation because those are the judgments most likely to be tested. For the remaining cases, at least read them thoroughly even if you don’t practice questions, because unexpected questions on less tested cases do appear occasionally.

In your final month, focus on complete paper sets rather than isolated questions. Attempt at least one full four paper set per week (simulating the actual four consecutive days) to build holistic readiness. Some highly motivated candidates attempt 3-4 complete sets in their final month, treating each as a mini examination with complete seriousness. This level of practice might seem excessive, but it builds the confidence and competence that translate to success.

How to create model answers from previous AOR exam papers?

Creating model answers is perhaps the most valuable exercise you can do with past papers because it forces you to think like an examiner rather than just a candidate. After attempting a question, don’t stop at self evaluation, reconstruct what a perfect answer would contain by consulting source materials, case law, statutes, and if available, studying answers from successful candidates.

Start by listing all components a complete answer requires. For a question on “Explain the scope and limitations of Article 142 of the Constitution with case law,” your perfect answer should include: brief introduction to Article 142, the exact wording of Article 142(1) and 142(2), discussion of “complete justice” concept, powers the Supreme Court can exercise under this article, limitations on this power (can’t violate substantive rights, can’t legislate), landmark cases interpreting Article 142 (A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. [SC 1988]), recent developments, and conclusion.

Now write this model answer yourself, taking time to ensure accuracy and comprehensiveness without worrying about time limits. Make it detailed, well cited, properly structured, and covering all relevant dimensions. This becomes your reference answer. When you re-attempt this question later under timed conditions, you know exactly what standard you’re aiming for and can assess how close you came.

For Paper II, create model drafts for all major petition types by studying actual Supreme Court filings (available on the court’s website), referring to drafting guides, and consulting with senior practitioners if possible. Your model SLP format, complete with proper cause title, synopsis structure, numbering of grounds, citation format, and prayer language, serves as template you can adapt to various fact patterns.

Maintain a separate notebook or digital file for these model answers and drafts. Over time, this becomes your personalized answer bank representing exactly what you aim to reproduce in the examination. Review these model answers during final revision to reinforce proper structure, key points to include, and appropriate citation style.

One caveat: don’t memorize model answers verbatim. The goal is to internalize the structure, key points, and citation style so you can reproduce similar quality answers for any variation of the question. Memorized answers sound mechanical and fail to address specific question nuances. Your model answers are blueprints showing what comprehensive coverage looks like, not scripts to be reproduced word for word.

Exam day strategy and tips

Your examination day strategy begins the night before ensure you have all required materials (admit card, ID proof, multiple pens, water bottle), know your examination center location and travel time, and get adequate sleep despite natural nervousness. Arrive at the center at least 45 minutes early to avoid last minute stress and acclimate to the environment.

When you receive the question paper, resist the impulse to start writing immediately. Spend the first 5 minutes reading all questions thoroughly, noting which questions carry internal choice, and mentally planning your approach. Circle or underline key words in questions “discuss,” “critically analyze,” “draft,” “compare” because these directive words dictate your answer structure. Many candidates lose marks by writing irrelevant content because they didn’t read questions carefully.

Decide which questions you’ll attempt and in what sequence. Most successful candidates recommend attempting questions in decreasing order of confidence start with the question you’re most certain about to secure those marks and build psychological momentum. Starting with a difficult question and struggling for 40 minutes creates panic that affects your entire paper.

As you write, maintain consistent pacing. If you’ve planned to spend 30 minutes on a question, stick to it even if you haven’t covered everything you wanted. Write what you know, mark the question for potential addition if time permits, and move forward. Incomplete coverage of all questions is better than perfect answers for three questions and blank paper for the fourth question worth 20 marks.

For Paper II specifically, spend extra time ensuring your drafts are formatted correctly before you start writing. Draw cause title format on rough paper, list all sections (Synopsis, List of Dates, Grounds, Prayer, Verification), and confirm you understand what’s being asked. A beautifully written draft in the wrong format scores poorly. Double check case names, statutory provisions, and article numbers before citing them wrong citations suggest superficial preparation.

Maintain neat handwriting throughout, even in the last hour when fatigue sets in. Use proper margins on every page, draw lines to separate different sections of your answer, underline headings, and leave some space between answers. Visual clarity helps examiners navigate your answer and creates a professional impression. If you make an error, strike through cleanly with a single line rather than scribbling out messily.

Use all three hours productively. If you finish early, utilize remaining time for thorough review: ensure you’ve answered the correct number of questions, verify your roll number appears on every page, check that page numbers are sequential, scan answers for obvious factual errors, and add brief points you initially missed if space permits. Don’t leave the examination hall early every extra minute can add marks through careful enhancement of existing answers.

Between papers (during the four day examination), avoid extensive discussions with fellow candidates about what questions appeared and how others answered. This typically causes unnecessary anxiety “I didn’t write about that case!” or “Did I miss that point?” Such post mortems don’t help because you cannot change what you wrote; instead, focus forward on the next paper. Rest adequately, eat properly, and maintain confidence regardless of how you felt about previous papers.

What are the common mistakes candidates must avoid while writing their answers?

The single biggest mistake candidates make is writing irrelevant content answering the question they wish had been asked rather than the actual question. A question asking “Discuss the grounds on which curative petitions are maintainable” doesn’t need extensive discussion of review petitions or general Supreme Court jurisdiction; it needs focused analysis of curative petition grounds. Every sentence not directly addressing the question is wasted effort earning zero marks.

Many candidates write overly generic answers that could apply to any question on the topic. When asked about a specific case, they write general constitutional principles without explaining that case specifically. When asked to distinguish two concepts, they define each separately without actually highlighting differences. When asked to “critically analyze,” they merely describe without offering evaluation. Read question directives carefully and ensure your answer matches what’s requested.

Poor time management ruins many otherwise capable candidates. They spend 50 minutes writing an excellent answer to one 20 mark question, then realize they have only 90 minutes left for three remaining 20 mark questions. They panic, write rushed incomplete answers, and fail despite having adequate knowledge. Practice timed paper solving until time discipline becomes automatic.

In Paper II, the most common mistake is choosing the wrong petition type for the given facts. Candidates draft writ petitions under Article 32 when the situation requires an SLP under Article 136, or attempt transfer petitions when review petitions are appropriate. This fundamental error occurs because candidates don’t carefully analyze the jurisdictional issue before starting to draft. Always identify: What court passed the impugned order? What is the legal issue? What remedy does the client seek? What is the appropriate Supreme Court jurisdiction? Only then start drafting.

Another drafting mistake is using generic grounds that could fit any petition. Instead of specific grounds tied to the facts (“The impugned High Court judgment violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appellant without hearing their arguments on limitation, as held in XYZ v. ABC”), candidates write generic grounds (“The impugned order is contrary to law and principles of natural justice”). Specific, fact linked grounds with case law citations score much better.

Many candidates neglect proper citation format. They write “as held in Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala [SC 1973]” without mentioning the year or citation. They cite “Article 14” when the specific issue relates to Article 14 read with Article 21. They reference “Section 25 of CPC” without clarifying whether they mean Section 25 of Civil Procedure Code regarding transfer jurisdiction. Examiners expect precise legal citations correct statute name, section/article number, and case names with years at minimum.

Handwriting becomes illegible when candidates rush, causing examiners to skip portions they cannot read. Even excellent legal analysis is useless if the examiner cannot decipher what you wrote. Practice writing neatly at speed initially you’ll be slow, but consistency builds both speed and legibility simultaneously.

Candidates often fail to structure answers properly, writing long paragraphs without headings, transitions, or logical flow. The examiner should be able to scan your answer and immediately see its structure. Use headings and subheadings liberally. For a 20 mark question, 4-5 clear sections with headings helps examiners follow your argument and makes grading easier (which works in your favor).

Finally, many candidates quit prematurely on difficult questions, leaving them blank or writing just 2-3 lines. Even partial answers earn partial marks. If you cannot fully answer a question, write whatever you know relevant statutory provisions, applicable case law, general principles and structure it well. A 5 page incomplete but well structured answer scores better than a blank page.

What are the common errors candidates commit in each paper?

In Paper I (Practice and Procedure), candidates frequently confuse similar procedural concepts mixing up review petition requirements with curative petition grounds, conflating original jurisdiction with appellate jurisdiction, or misunderstanding the difference between statutory appeals and discretionary SLPs under Article 136. These conceptual confusions immediately signal superficial preparation to examiners.

Another Paper I error is citing Supreme Court Rules incorrectly or vaguely. Writing “as per Supreme Court Rules” without specifying Order and Rule numbers suggests you haven’t actually studied the Rules. When the question requires you to explain the procedure for a particular application, examiners expect exact Rule references: “Under Order XIII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013…” Similarly, constitutional provisions should be cited precisely with article numbers and clauses where relevant.

Candidates also struggle with application based questions in Paper I, where hypothetical scenarios require them to identify relevant jurisdiction and suggest appropriate legal remedies. They often miss nuances for instance, not recognizing that if the impugned order comes from a tribunal rather than a High Court, jurisdiction differs. Or failing to note that certain grounds might support both review and curative petitions but curative requires first exhausting review.

In Paper II (Drafting), the most frequent error is incorrect or incomplete cause titles. The cause title format in Supreme Court petitions has specific conventions how parties are designated (Petitioner, Appellant, Respondent), when to use “vs.” versus “v.”, how to reference lower court case numbers. Many candidates lose marks immediately because their cause title doesn’t follow Supreme Court format, even before examiners read the substantive content.

Candidates often omit mandatory sections in drafts. They might prepare excellent legal grounds but forget to include a synopsis (now required in most petitions). Or they draft grounds without numbering them properly. Or they write a prayer clause without properly distinguishing interim prayers from final prayers. These omissions suggest unfamiliarity with actual Supreme Court practice.

Another Paper II problem is writing synopsis that merely summarize facts rather than clearly stating the legal questions and grounds. A synopsis should be a crisp legal roadmap enabling the court to understand the case immediately. Similarly, grounds should be specific and tied to facts, not generic statements. “The impugned judgment violates principles of natural justice” is weak; “The impugned judgment violates principles of natural justice by failing to consider the crucial evidence of witness XYZ presented by the appellant, thereby denying fair hearing” is stronger.

In Paper III (Professional Ethics), candidates make the mistake of writing one sided answers without acknowledging complexity. Ethical issues often involve competing obligations duty to client versus duty to court, confidentiality versus prevention of fraud. Examiners expect balanced discussion recognizing these tensions before reaching conclusions. Candidates who present simplistic “right” or “wrong” answers miss the analytical depth required.

Another Paper III error is discussing ethics theoretically without citing specific provisions of the Advocates Act, BCI Rules, or relevant case law. Your opinion on ethical questions matters less than your ability to ground it in legal authority. When discussing whether advocates can strike, cite specific cases where courts ruled on this issue, reference relevant BCI Rules, and then present your reasoned conclusion.

Paper IV (Leading Cases) sees candidates committing the error of writing generic case summaries instead of answering the specific question asked. If the question asks about the minority opinion in a case, don’t write a general summary of the majority judgment focus on what the minority said and why. If asked how one judgment modified another, explain the specific modifications, not both cases separately.

Many candidates also fail to connect cases with broader constitutional principles or subsequent developments. Simply narrating facts and judgment isn’t enough; show understanding of the case’s significance, its doctrinal contributions, how it relates to earlier precedents, and how subsequent judgments have applied or distinguished it. This contextual understanding separates excellent answers from mediocre ones.

Finally, across all papers, candidates err by leaving questions incomplete or unattempted. While understandable under time pressure, this directly results in lost marks. Better to write structured bullet points covering key aspects than to leave blank pages. Examiners can award marks for demonstrated knowledge even in abbreviated form; they cannot award marks for blank spaces.

What practices must be followed to avoid making mistakes in the exam?

Develop a pre-writing routine for every answer that prevents common mistakes. 

Before starting any answer, spend 30-60 seconds mentally structuring it: What are the key points to cover? What case law is relevant? What statutory provisions apply? Which cases/statutes should I cite? What’s the logical sequence? This brief planning prevents rambling answers that lose focus halfway through.

Create checklists for different question types and internalize them through practice. For Paper I procedural questions, your mental checklist might be: State the relevant constitutional provision → Cite applicable Supreme Court Rule → Discuss any limitations → Provide case law examples → Apply to the question asked. For Paper II drafts: Verify correct petition type → Draft proper cause title → Include all mandatory sections → Ensure grounds are specific and numbered → Verify prayer clause clarity → Check citations accuracy.

Practice writing with conscious attention to common errors until error avoidance becomes automatic. Every time you practice, specifically check: Did I answer the actual question? Are my citations accurate? Is my handwriting legible? Is my structure clear? Did I include relevant case law? This repetitive self checking builds habits that carry into the actual examination.

Build time buffers into your exam strategy. When planning to spend 30 minutes on a 20 mark question, aim to finish in 28 minutes so you have cushion for unexpected complications. This buffer prevents panic when one question takes longer than planned. Similarly, reserve the last 10 minutes of each paper for review, allowing you to catch errors before submitting.

For technical accuracy (case names, article numbers, section numbers), practice recall exercises. Make flashcards of important cases with full citations, constitutional provisions with article numbers, Supreme Court Rules with Order and Rule numbers, and review regularly. During examination, if you’re unsure of an exact citation, write what you’re certain of rather than guessing incorrectly. 

Practice managing examination stress through mock tests under realistic conditions. The actual examination environment unfamiliar location, time pressure, other candidates, physical discomfort creates stress that impacts performance. Regular mock tests build psychological resilience and help you develop coping mechanisms for maintaining focus despite stress.

Study with attention to detail, not just broad concepts. Don’t just know that curative petitions exist; know the exact grounds on which they’re maintainable, the requirement of circulation to three senior most judges, the specific Rules governing their filing. Don’t just understand Article 32; know its specific scope, limitations, the type of writs available, and how it differs from Article 226. This detailed mastery prevents errors during examination.

Finally, maintain physical and mental wellness during preparation and examination days. Adequate sleep, proper nutrition, regular exercise, and stress management techniques help you perform optimally. Many mistakes result not from lack of knowledge but from fatigue, stress, or anxiety impairing cognitive function. Take care of yourself as seriously as you take care of your legal preparation.

Conclusion

I want you to understand something crucial as we wrap up this comprehensive guide, your success in the AOR examination fundamentally depends on how strategically you use previous years question papers throughout your preparation journey. These papers aren’t just practice material; they’re your most reliable roadmap showing exactly what the Supreme Court expects from competent advocates seeiking to practice in the highest court.

The AOR exam’s challenging pass rate isn’t because the content is impossibly difficult; it’s because most candidates prepare theoretically without understanding examination specific demands. Past papers bridge this crucial gap between knowledge and examination success. They show you which topics deserve intensive focus, what question patterns recur, how to structure answers effectively, what common mistakes to avoid, and how to manage time across four consecutive demanding papers.

Your pathway to becoming an Advocate on Record isn’t mysterious study the Supreme Court Rules comprehensively, read the leading cases thoroughly, practice drafting extensively, understand professional ethics deeply, and continuously test yourself using previous years’ papers.

Remember that you have only five attempts at this examination, making strategic preparation essential. Don’t waste attempts by appearing unprepared. Use every resource available, especially the treasure trove of past papers showing exactly what works.

The AOR designation opens doors to the most prestigious legal practice in India. This goal is absolutely achievable for you if you’re willing to invest the focused effort required, using the strategic approach this guide provides.

I wish you the very best in your preparation and examination. Your success story begins with the decision to prepare strategically using past papers, apply the strategies we’ve discussed, and you’ll significantly increase your chances of joining the select ranks of Advocates on Record. 

FAQs

Do AOR exam question papers repeat questions from previous years? 

Questions rarely repeat verbatim, but topics and concepts definitely recur with variations. Curative petitions, jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 32, drafting of SLPs, and certain frequently tested leading cases appear in multiple years with different angles or fact patterns. Studying past papers helps you identify these high frequency topics.

Which is the toughest paper in the AOR exam according to past papers? 

Paper II (Drafting) and Paper IV (Leading Cases) are generally considered most challenging, though for different reasons. Paper II requires mastery of Supreme Court specific formats and ability to apply them quickly. Paper IV involves studying thousands of pages of case law. Difficulty varies by individual background and strengths.

Are there negative markings in any paper? 

No, there is no negative marking in the AOR examination. All papers are descriptive with marks awarded for correct content written. However, you must attempt the required number of questions leaving questions unattempted means voluntarily forfeiting those marks.

Are solved AOR exam question papers available anywhere? 

The Supreme Court doesn’t publish official answer keys or model answers. Some coaching institutes and publications provide suggested answers, but their quality and accuracy vary. Your best approach is studying source materials thoroughly and creating your own model answers based on comprehensive research.

Are all questions compulsory or is there an internal choice in all AOR exam question papers? 

Not all questions are compulsory in the Advocate on Record (AOR) examination question papers.The format varies slightly by paper but generally includes a combination of compulsory questions and internal choices to test both core knowledge and selective application.The AOR exam question papers generally include internal choices, typically requiring candidates to answer 4–5 questions out of 5–8 options, with some papers having 1–2 compulsory questions. You must answer the specified number of questions skipping questions even with internal choice means losing marks. The exact pattern varies across years.

Is solving previous years AOR exam papers enough to pass? 

No, past papers are necessary but not sufficient. You need comprehensive study of Supreme Court Rules, constitutional provisions, case law, drafting practice, and professional ethics from primary sources. Past papers guide what to study and how to present knowledge, but don’t replace thorough foundational learning.

What trends can be seen from analyzing past AOR exam question papers? 

Recent papers show clear trends: increased application based questions requiring analysis rather than mere recall, higher emphasis on jurisdiction questions in Paper I, more complex fact patterns in Paper II drafting questions, analytical ethical dilemmas in Paper III, and specific case aspect questions in Paper IV rather than general case summaries.

What makes AOR exam papers unique compared to law school exams? 

AOR papers test practical Supreme Court competence, not academic knowledge. Questions require precise citation of Rules and constitutional provisions, professional drafting in court ready formats, understanding of actual Supreme Court procedures, and ability to demonstrate readiness to practice as an AOR. The specificity and practical focus distinguish them from theoretical law school exams.

---