AIBE common mistakes
AIBE · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering the objective (MCQ) section as a test of recall of section numbers rather than of the legal proposition, so that a candidate who knows the correct rule still picks an option because it cites a section number that looks familiar.
AIBE preparation in Indian law schools rewards memorising section and article numbers; under time pressure candidates pattern-match on the number instead of reading what the option actually asserts, and the examiner deliberately includes options with correct citations attached to wrong propositions.
What to do instead
Before choosing, rewrite each option in plain language in the margin and check it against the rule you know; treat any citation as decoration to be verified last, not as evidence. In practice, drill 20 questions where you cover the section numbers and answer only from the proposition.
Spending uniform time across all 100 objective questions, so that the last 20 questions are answered in the final five minutes and several are left blank or mis-bubbled.
Candidates treat the paper as a knowledge test rather than a pacing exercise, never rehearse with a timer, and discover the time problem only in the real hall where there is no opportunity to recalibrate.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed per-question budget (roughly 60-70 seconds), do three full timed mocks with an OMR sheet, and build a rule to skip any question exceeding 90 seconds and return to it. Practise bubbling in blocks of five to avoid off-by-one errors.
Writing the descriptive answers as a narrative essay that states the correct conclusion but never cites the governing provision, the leading case, or the statutory exception.
Law school exams often reward discussion and policy reasoning, whereas the descriptive paper is marked against a structured expectation of provision, principle, authority and application; candidates carry over the wrong genre.
What to do instead
Use a fixed four-part skeleton for every answer: (1) the provision with its number and statute, (2) the principle in one sentence, (3) one or two authorities with the ratio, (4) application to the facts and a conclusion. Practise writing ten answers to this template under timed conditions and get them marked against the skeleton, not against length.
Ignoring the procedural-law subjects (Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure or the new criminal codes, Evidence, Limitation) on the assumption that substantive law carries more marks, and leaving entire question clusters unattempted.
Candidates allocate study time by law-school credit weight and by interest, and procedural law feels dry; but the objective paper samples evenly across the syllabus, so a skipped subject becomes a guaranteed block of lost marks.
What to do instead
Map the syllabus against past-paper topic frequency and force at least one revision cycle through every procedural subject, focusing on the high-yield mechanics: jurisdiction, limitation periods, stages of a suit or trial, bail, charge framing, and the rules of relevancy and burden of proof.
Reading the question stem once and answering from the first impression of the fact pattern, missing the qualifying words ('not', 'except', 'best', 'most appropriately') that invert the question.
Objective papers are written with negative and superlative stems precisely to separate careful readers; under speed pressure the eye skips the operative word and the candidate supplies the answer to a question that was not asked.
What to do instead
Circle or underline the operative word in every stem before reading the options, and for negative stems restate the task to yourself as 'which one is false'. Include this step in timed practice so it becomes automatic rather than a special effort.
Treating the legal-reasoning and comprehension passages as general-English comprehension, choosing options that are true in the world or morally appealing rather than the one that follows from the passage's stated principle.
The passages present a principle and a fact situation, and the correct option is the one derivable from that principle even if it conflicts with the candidate's own sense of justice; candidates import outside morality or statute and pick the 'fair' answer.
What to do instead
For each passage, write the principle in one line and the facts in one line before looking at the options, then eliminate any option that requires a fact or rule not given. Do not bring in outside law unless the passage itself invokes it.
In the descriptive paper, leaving a question entirely blank when the candidate only half-remembers the law, instead of writing the provision that is known and reasoning from general principles.
Fear of writing something wrong, combined with the law-school habit of only answering when fully prepared; but markers award credit for correct structure and partial knowledge, and a blank scores zero regardless.
What to do instead
Adopt a rule: never leave a question blank. Write the closest provision you are confident about, state the general principle, apply it to the facts, and conclude; a structured partial answer reliably outscores silence.
Preparing only from bare acts and notes without ever writing a full-length answer or a full mock, so that handwriting speed, answer structure and stamina are untested until the exam day.
Reading feels productive and writing feels slow, so candidates defer writing practice; the descriptive paper is three hours of continuous handwriting, and untrained candidates run out of time or legibility before the final question.
What to do instead
Schedule at least six full three-hour writing sessions in the final two months, using actual past paper questions, and track words per hour and legibility. Build a short list of authorities per subject that you can reproduce from memory.
Misallocating descriptive-paper time by writing one very long answer to the first question and then rushing or truncating the remaining answers.
The first question is often the best-remembered one, and candidates over-invest to secure marks, not realising that marks are distributed across questions and a truncated answer loses more than an expanded one gains.
What to do instead
Fix a per-question time cap based on the number of questions and total marks, write to the cap, and move on. Use the four-part skeleton to keep answers proportionate, and reserve the final ten minutes for reviewing question numbering and completing unfinished conclusions.
Not reading the instructions on the question paper and OMR sheet, such as the number of questions, negative marking (if any), language of answer, and the requirement to fill circles in a particular way, and discovering a compliance problem only at the end.
Candidates assume the format is familiar from other exams and skip the instruction page in the rush to start; AIBE instructions have changed across years, and a format assumption can invalidate otherwise correct work.
What to do instead
Read the instruction page in full before writing anything, note the question count, marking scheme and permitted language on the rough sheet, and verify at the end that every answer is transferred and every circle correctly filled. Rehearse this checklist in every mock.