What should the Bar Council of India (BCI) do when law colleges do not abide by its statutory rules?.Justice Rekha Palli of the Delhi High Court was prompted to raise this query recently while passing orders in the case which had thrown up significant lapses on the part of Amity Law School, Delhi, which is affiliated to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha (GGSIP) University..Case Background.A petition brought against Amity Law School and the GGSIP University by aggrieved students revealed that Amity had only conducted 35% of the class hours mandated by the BCI in its Legal Education Rules..The students moved the Court after they were informed that they would not be allowed to write their ninth semester examinations owing to attendance shortages..Among the various grievances raised, the petitioners’ Advocate, Karuna Nandy informed the Court that intimation in this regard was only given five days before the scheduled exams. This was in violation of the procedure prescribed by the GGSIP University, which required that such detention lists be published ten days before exams..Further, classes were scheduled to end only on November 10, 2017. However, Nandy pointed out that the Amity stopped conducting classes a week before, on November 3. While special classes were conducted on a few days after, it was contended that students were not uniformly informed of the same..It was the case of the student-petitioners that the only reason they were facing attendance shortages was that Amity had not conducted the prescribed number of classes..Eventually, an Expert Committee was constituted by the GGSIP University to look into the issue. The Court allowed the students to take their end semester exams, with the condition that the result would be subject to the outcome of the case..In February 2018, the Expert Committee suggested that classes be conducted for an extra seven days to make up for the shortfall. At this stage, the students had already taken their exams. However, instead of implementing this direction, the Amity Law School opted to forward the Committee’s proposal to the BCI..The BCI, in turn, took the view that this suggestion would be violative of Rule 12 of the Legal Education Rules, which requires that the mandatory class hours be completed before the conduct of the exam..As the debate over the possible solution progressed between the authorities, the students were left in a state of limbo, having entered their final year but denied their ninth semester results..Ultimately, the question before the Court was whether the Expert Committee’s suggestion to conduct an additional week’s worth of classes to compensate for the attendance shortfall should be implemented or not..This question was answered in the affirmative, contrary to the stance taken by Amity Law School and the BCI. The Court directed that the GGSIP University-appointed Expert Committee’s suggestions be implemented without further ado, particularly given the plight of the students in the case..The reasons for allowing their plea can be broadly summed up thus,.The larger blame lay on the college in failing to conduct the mandatory minimum of class hours. The Court noted that Amity law school was well aware of its obligation to adhere to the academic calendar prescribed by the GGSIP University as well as the BCI’s rules, which it had admittedly not done.The student petitioners were found to have a prima facie case given that, “it is a clear case where the Applicants were deprived of an opportunity to attend the requisite number of classes to meet the prescribed attendance criteria.”Any further delay in implementing the Expert Committee’s proposal would cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioners¸ particularly given that they were at the threshold of completing their final year.Given these reasons, the Court found that the balance of convenience was heavily in favour of the students.The proposal appeared to be a viable solution that was fair to all stakeholders, particularly given the belated stage at which the issues were raised. In this background, the Court opined, “that there is no reason as to why the remedial measures recommended…should not be implemented, especially when they do not adversely prejudice any of the parties involved.”.The order directing the implementation of the Expert Committee proposals within 10 days was therefore passed in favour of the student petitioners. Advocates Chattopadhyay and Sarita appeared for the GGSIP University. Advocate Amitesh Kumar made arguments for Amity Law School. The BCI was represented by Advocates Preet Pal Singh and Priyam Mehta..Lingering Questions.Justice Palli, however, found that the case shed light on certain lacunae concerning the role of the Bar Council of India in ensuring and maintaining the high standards of legal education in India..In particular, the Court has raised the following questions for urgent consideration:.What is the Bar Council of India expected to do when its recognized law colleges do not abide by the Rules of Legal Education, Bar Council of India Rules and do not hold the mandatory number of class hours prescribed thereunder? Does the Bar Council of India have the power to conduct suo motu inspections of centers of legal education under the Rules of Legal Education, Bar Council of India Rules, so as to ensure the compliance of the said rules by law colleges and universities across the country?.Does the Bar Council of India have the power to make ex-parte observations in respect of a University’s specific findings with regard to its affiliated colleges?.The case is expected to be taken up next on July 9, 2018..Read the judgement:
What should the Bar Council of India (BCI) do when law colleges do not abide by its statutory rules?.Justice Rekha Palli of the Delhi High Court was prompted to raise this query recently while passing orders in the case which had thrown up significant lapses on the part of Amity Law School, Delhi, which is affiliated to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha (GGSIP) University..Case Background.A petition brought against Amity Law School and the GGSIP University by aggrieved students revealed that Amity had only conducted 35% of the class hours mandated by the BCI in its Legal Education Rules..The students moved the Court after they were informed that they would not be allowed to write their ninth semester examinations owing to attendance shortages..Among the various grievances raised, the petitioners’ Advocate, Karuna Nandy informed the Court that intimation in this regard was only given five days before the scheduled exams. This was in violation of the procedure prescribed by the GGSIP University, which required that such detention lists be published ten days before exams..Further, classes were scheduled to end only on November 10, 2017. However, Nandy pointed out that the Amity stopped conducting classes a week before, on November 3. While special classes were conducted on a few days after, it was contended that students were not uniformly informed of the same..It was the case of the student-petitioners that the only reason they were facing attendance shortages was that Amity had not conducted the prescribed number of classes..Eventually, an Expert Committee was constituted by the GGSIP University to look into the issue. The Court allowed the students to take their end semester exams, with the condition that the result would be subject to the outcome of the case..In February 2018, the Expert Committee suggested that classes be conducted for an extra seven days to make up for the shortfall. At this stage, the students had already taken their exams. However, instead of implementing this direction, the Amity Law School opted to forward the Committee’s proposal to the BCI..The BCI, in turn, took the view that this suggestion would be violative of Rule 12 of the Legal Education Rules, which requires that the mandatory class hours be completed before the conduct of the exam..As the debate over the possible solution progressed between the authorities, the students were left in a state of limbo, having entered their final year but denied their ninth semester results..Ultimately, the question before the Court was whether the Expert Committee’s suggestion to conduct an additional week’s worth of classes to compensate for the attendance shortfall should be implemented or not..This question was answered in the affirmative, contrary to the stance taken by Amity Law School and the BCI. The Court directed that the GGSIP University-appointed Expert Committee’s suggestions be implemented without further ado, particularly given the plight of the students in the case..The reasons for allowing their plea can be broadly summed up thus,.The larger blame lay on the college in failing to conduct the mandatory minimum of class hours. The Court noted that Amity law school was well aware of its obligation to adhere to the academic calendar prescribed by the GGSIP University as well as the BCI’s rules, which it had admittedly not done.The student petitioners were found to have a prima facie case given that, “it is a clear case where the Applicants were deprived of an opportunity to attend the requisite number of classes to meet the prescribed attendance criteria.”Any further delay in implementing the Expert Committee’s proposal would cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioners¸ particularly given that they were at the threshold of completing their final year.Given these reasons, the Court found that the balance of convenience was heavily in favour of the students.The proposal appeared to be a viable solution that was fair to all stakeholders, particularly given the belated stage at which the issues were raised. In this background, the Court opined, “that there is no reason as to why the remedial measures recommended…should not be implemented, especially when they do not adversely prejudice any of the parties involved.”.The order directing the implementation of the Expert Committee proposals within 10 days was therefore passed in favour of the student petitioners. Advocates Chattopadhyay and Sarita appeared for the GGSIP University. Advocate Amitesh Kumar made arguments for Amity Law School. The BCI was represented by Advocates Preet Pal Singh and Priyam Mehta..Lingering Questions.Justice Palli, however, found that the case shed light on certain lacunae concerning the role of the Bar Council of India in ensuring and maintaining the high standards of legal education in India..In particular, the Court has raised the following questions for urgent consideration:.What is the Bar Council of India expected to do when its recognized law colleges do not abide by the Rules of Legal Education, Bar Council of India Rules and do not hold the mandatory number of class hours prescribed thereunder? Does the Bar Council of India have the power to conduct suo motu inspections of centers of legal education under the Rules of Legal Education, Bar Council of India Rules, so as to ensure the compliance of the said rules by law colleges and universities across the country?.Does the Bar Council of India have the power to make ex-parte observations in respect of a University’s specific findings with regard to its affiliated colleges?.The case is expected to be taken up next on July 9, 2018..Read the judgement:
