S. DEEPIKA BHAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as the grievance of the petitioners is identical.

(2.) THE petitioners are candidates who have been denied admission to the Three Year LL.B. Degree Course either on the ground that the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification of a '10+2+3' pattern Degree or that they had not secured the requisite minimum marks in the qualifying examination. In that, some of the petitioners either had not taken the two year Pre -University Course, before obtaining a Bachelor's Degree through an Open University - or had a Master's Degree through an Open University without having obtained a three year Bachelor's Degree. There is one petitioner who has managed to complete the Pre -university Course and a Degree course, simultaneously.! And there is a candidate who has a B.A.Degree without having completed the ]0th Standard or PUC. The following is an abstract of the details pertaining to each petitioner. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_98_TLKAR0_2014.html</FRM> In most cases, their application for admission was itself rejected. There is an instance where the candidate has been inadvertently admitted overlooking the above eligibility and later denied permission to take the examination. This court has consistently granted interim relief ir» all the cases, directing the respondents to admit the petitioners to pursue the course, subject to the result of the writ petition It is seen that the admissions have been denied in many instances, by the respective institutions where the petitioners had chosen to take the Course, with reference to a Circular issued by the Bar Council of India (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BCI', for brevity), No.LECiR2/lO dated 20.12 2010. The same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the BCI that the BCI is a statutory body constituted by virtue of Section 4 of the 1961 Act. T he BCI being the highest regulatory body of legal education and the legal profession is enjoined with laying down standards of legal education and the legal profession. From a reading of Sections 7,15 and 24 of the 1961 Act and subject to the Rules made thereunder, it is evident that BCI is vested with vast Rule making powers for the benefit of the legal profession and legal education. These provisions are broadly worded and it cannot be given a narrow meaning. The purpose of the legislation is to be considered which is to improve the standards of the legal profession and legal education. The provisions should hence be interpreted liberally keeping in mind its purpose. It is contended that the curriculum which was prepared more than a decade ago had to be revamped to bring it in tune with the present international standards. And in order to augment the standards, it was necessary to bring in necessary changes. Accordingly, the BCI is said to have taken up the task of changing the curriculum in consultation with the Universities and the State Bar Councils and in exercise of its plenary powers, the 2008 Rules were framed, which was approved and adopted by the BCI at its meeting held on 14.09.2008 vide resolution No. 110/2008. It is contended that Rule 5 is constitutionally valid in all respects. The Bar Council being the apex regulatory body is empowered to set basic criteria for entry to law courses. The words 'standards of such education' mentioned in Section 7(h) of the 1961 Act is sufficiently wide to enable the BCI to insist upon minimum level of general education as a prerequisite for taking up the study of law and accordingly, by virtue of powers conferred on the BCI, has defined general education as qualifications as a condition for admission into a law course. The power has been exercised after due consultation and deliberation in the best interest of the legal fraternity. It is contended that the said Rule is wrongly understood by the petitioners. It is asserted that it does not derecognize or eschew the courses pursued through the Open Universities or through distance mode. The Bar Council only prescribes that there should be basic education which each candidate should have undertaken and prosecuted. The three year course is a second bachelor course undertaken after a basic degree in any stream and the 5 year integrated course is a first bachelors course undertaken after plus 2 or an equivalent course of study. Such classification is to be understood rightly by the candidates. It is contended that the explanation creates no ambiguity at all and there is clarity on the issue. The explanation to Rule 5 prescribes that degrees obtained through distance education or open university courses are approved by the BCI. But the candidates should have the basic qualification and cannot jump the queue at their convenience or to their advantage. The Explanation to Rule 5 requires that the candidate has the basic qualification in order to be qualified to be admitted to that course. The basic qualification for a Plus 2 course would be 10th standard aiid for a degree course would mean plus 2 or equivalent and basic qualification for a Post Graduation course would mean a Bachelor Degree. It is further contended that the Supreme Court in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, Civil Appeal No.4173 with Civil Appeal No.4189 -4191of 2008 and the Madras High Court in G.Vikraman Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu W.P.No.26257/2009 held that the Rules made under Rule 5 is valid and Constitutional. It is contended that there is no violation of any fundamental rights in this matter. The Bar Council has laid down only basic criteria for admission to colleges and has not prohibited anyone arbitrarily.