| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1143963 |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Decided On | Mar-13-2014 |
| Case Number | Writ Petition Nos. 27800 of 2009 (EDN-AD) 29852-854 of 2009 (EDN-RES) & 19608, 28749, 23993, 33831, 18630, 27891, 27992, 27217-27220, 25963 of 2010 (EDN-AD) 22512, 26145, 26856, 31424, 24984 of 2010 (EDN-RES) 36479, 36695-707 of 2010 (EDN-EX) & 23138, 27457, 23011, 28605, 24750, 36167, 27458, 33654, 21717, 27471, 33687, 33704-705 of 2011 (EDN-AD) 25530 of 2011 (EDN-RES) & 28001, 24710-712, 35430, 23475, 40064, 38920, 39806, 23681, 26421, 26422 of 2012 (EDN-AD) |
| Judge | ANAND BYRAREDDY |
| Appellant | S. Deepika Bhat and Others |
| Respondent | Union of India, Represented by Department of Law and Others |
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 7/9.1.2010 issued by the respondent no.3 University vide Annexure-A.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-E dated 1.6.2011 issued by the first respondent and also Annexure-F issued by the 4th respondent dated 13.06.2011 for the reasons stated at para 4 to this writ petition.)
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-F, i.e., endorsement dated 5.9.2011 issued by the first respondent i.e., Karnataka State Law University and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Admission Notification dated 1.6.2011 marked as Annexure-B, in so far as explanation to Rule-2(c) is concerned, award costs, pass such other writ or direction.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the vide Annexure-F i.e., endorsement dated 04.09.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent i.e., Sri Kengal Hanumathaiaya Law College, Marikuppam, K.G.F, 563 119 and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Annexure-J dated 8.6.2010 issued by the first respondent to the second respondent and permit the petitioner to continue her higher education.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the vide Annexure-C. i.e., endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent dated 28.7.2010 and quash the vide Annexure-D i.e., admission notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 3.5.2010 and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to prosecute his studies by way of 3 years LLB Course.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 26.10.2010 issued by the second respondent as Annexure-D; and quash the admission notification dated 3.5.2010 issued by the Karnataka State Law University, the first respondent at Annexure-E, in so far it relates to clauses 2(a) (c) and (g) are concerned and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to prosecute his studies by way of 3 years LLB Course.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India playing to quash the criteria fixed for admission to three years LLB Course in so far as prescribed procedure of study of 10+2*3 years studying pattern and to the extent of disqualifying the candidates who have completed the examination of PUC and BA Degree without following 10+2+3 pattern of education vide notification produced at Annexure-K, dated 5.4.2012 and direct the first respondent and second respondent to admit the petitioner to the three years LLB Course and permit her to pursue her studies in 3 years LLB Course.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the communication dated 14/17 6.2013, issued by second respondent - University, the true copy of which is produced and marked as Annexure-H since the same is illegal and violative of Rules of Natural Justice and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the first respondent University to issue necessary instructions/directions to the second respondent college to admit the petitioner to 3 years LLB Course and direct the first respondent Karnataka State Law University to give necessary instructions to the second respondent Seshadripuram Law College to admit the petitioner 3 year LLB Course in the second respondent Law College.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 22 7 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 9.6.2010 issued by the second respondent, Seshadripuram Law College, Seshadripuram, Bangalore - 560 020, produced at Annexure-E and etc;)
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-F respondent no.1 has passed an admission notification dated 5.4.2012 and also Annexure-O in No. SLC 834/2011-2012 issued by the respondent no.4 dated 24.5.2012 and etc;)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the regulations produced at Annexure-F so far as it relates to Rule 5(a) and (b) of Chapter II issued by Respondent No.3, and etc.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Annexure-C i.e., endorsement dated 5.7.2011 issued by the second respondent, i.e., Vivekananda College of Law No. 12/1, 3ld Cross, Maruthi Extension, Gayathrinagar, Bangalore - 560 021 and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the admission guideline dated 5.4.2012, issued by the first respondent University, so far as it relates to prescribing 10+2+3 pattern, requirement for admission to 3 years LLB course is concerned, vide Annexure-D and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Admission Notification dated 1.6.2011 marked as Annexure-B, in so far as explanation to Rule-2(e) is concerned, in respect of petitioner award costs, pass such other writ.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Annexure-D i.e., endorsement dated 26.08.2011 bearing reference No.VCL/200/11, issued by the 2nd respondent and etc;)
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-B dated 30.9.2009, vide Annexure-C dated 6.10.2009 and Annexure-D dated 6.10.2009 and writ of mandamus to the respondents to continue the petitioners of their three year Law Degree Course commencing form the Academic Year 2009.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ for declaration to declare that Regulation 07 framed under K.L.U.Act proviso to the effect that 'provided' further that the applicant which have obtained 10-f2 or graduation or post graduation through open University system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission to the course' as null and void on the ground that the same is in violation of standards prescribed by regulations framed by UGC Act 1956 and its Regulations and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records from the respondents and quash the Annexure-G dated 18 8.2010 issued by the second respondent in terms of the notification of the first respondent as per Annexure-H and permit the petitioner to complete his LL.B Degree.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records from the respondents and quash the Annexure-D dated 27.8.2010 issued by the second respondent in terms of the notification of the first respondent as per Annexure-E and permit the petitioner to complete his LL.B Degree.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying in quash the admission notification dated 03.05.2010, issued by the Karnataka State Law University in so far as it relates to clause 2(a), (c) and (g) produced herewith at Annexure-K and letter No. nil dated 21.09.2010, issued by the Principal, Al-Ameen College of Law, the second respondent herein produced at Annexure-G and direct the respondents to admit the petitioner and permit him to continue his studies in three years LLB Course in the Academic Year 2010-2011.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 23.8.2012 in PCL/1387/12-13 issued by the second respondent as Annexure-C; and quach the criteria fixed for admission to three years LLB Course in so far as prescribing procedure of study in 10+2+3 studying pattern and to the extent of disqualifying the candidates who have completed the examination of PUC and BA Degree without following 10+2+3 pattern of education vide notification produced at Annexure-D in ref. dated 5.4.2012 and direct the respondents to admit the petitioner to the three years LLB Course and pursue her studies.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Admission Notification dated 1.6.2011 marked as Annexure-B, in so far as explanation to Rule-2(c) is concerned, award costs.)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 31.8.2012 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-D and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement/letter dated 23.8.2012, issued by the second respondent true copy of which is produced at Annexure-A and admission notification dated 5.4.2012, issued by the first respondent, true copy of which is produced at Annexure-B and direct the respondents to admit the petitioner to the 1 year LLB in 3 years Course, by considering his application dated 22.8.2012, as referred in Annexure-A.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 20.7.2013 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-B; and quash the criteria fixed for admission to three years LLB Course in so far as prescribing procedure of study in 10+2+3 studying pattern and to the extent of disqualifying the candidates who have completed the examination of PUC and BA Degree without following 10+2+3 pattern of education dated 5.4.2012 vide Annexure - F and direct the respondents to admit the petitioner to the three years LLB Course and pursue his studies.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the admission notification dated 29.4.2013 vide Annexure-B in so for as explanation to Rule [i] is concern in respect of petitioner and etc;)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 28.08.2013 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-E, and etc.)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the petitioner is eligible to get admission to the first year of the three year LL.B. Degree course for the academic year 2013-14 conducted by the second respondent University.)
(Prayer: This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the regulations produced at Annexure-E insofar as it relates to Rule 5(A) and (B) of Chapter II issued by the 2nd respondent, and etc.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition tiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying 10 quash Annexure-E dated 1.6.2011 issued by the first respondent and also Annexure-F issued by the 4th respondent dated 13.6.2011 for the reasons stated at para 4 to this writ petition.)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Rule 28 of Schedule III and Rule 7 of Chapter II of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 framed by the 1st respondent - The Bar Council of India as per Annexure-"C" insofar as the petitioner is concerned, and etc.)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-D i.e., the endorsement dated 30.06.2011, issued by Respondent No.2, i.e. Visveswarapura College of Law, Srigandhada Kaval, Outer Ring Road, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore-91, and etc.)
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 23.08.2010 issued by the fourth respondent vide Annexure- A.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the vide Annexure- E i.e., endorsement dated 18.6.2012 issued by the second respondent, Seshadripuram Law College, Seshadripuram, Bangalore -560 020 and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying in quash the admission notification dated 29.4.2013 issued by first respondent vide Annexure-E and also to quash the impugned endorsement dated 7.8.2013 issued by second respondent vide Annexure-D by issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and etc;)
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Rule 28 of Schedule - III and Rule 7 of chapter - II of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 framed by the 1st respondent - Bar Council of India at Annexure-F to this writ petition , in so far as this petitioners are concerned and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 11.8.20] 0 issued by the respondent no.2 college vide Annexure- B and direct the respondent no.1 university to permit the petitioner to get his admission to 3 years LL.B course in the Academic Year of 2010-2011 and allow the petitioner to prosecute his studies.)
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent no.1 and 3 to approve the admission of the petitioner to the 1st year of 3 years LLB Course and direct the first and third respondent to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination of 1st semester of 3 years LLB Course to be commenced from 19.12.2012.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-F dated 29.4.2013 issued by the first respondent and also Annexure-G issued by the 4th respondent dated 29.5.2013 for the reasons stated at para - 4.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the part IV chapter II Rule 5 of Bar Council of India Rules as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and Section 86 read with 34[2] lii] and Section 49 of the Karnataka State Law University Act 2009 is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the admission notification dated 29.4.2013, issued by the first respondent as per Annexure- E and also to quash the impugned endorsement dated 29.6.2013 issued by the second respondent, vide Annexure-D, by issue of writ in the nature of certiorari and etc;)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 26/30.11.2013 issued by Respondent No.l at Annexure-H, and etc.)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-D, i.e. endorsement dated 23.07.2012 issued by Respondent No.2, i.e. Arunodaya Institute of Legal Studies, Bangalore-56, and etc.)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash vide Annexure-D i.e., endorsement dated 26.07.2012 issued by Respondent No.2, i.e. Vishweshwarapuram College of Law, Bangalore-4, and etc.)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-D i.e., endorsement dated 24.08.2012 issued by Respondent No.2, i.e. Vishweshwarapuram College of Law, Bangalore-4, and etc.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the endorsement dated 20.07.2011 vide Annexure-D issued by the 2nd respondent, ie.., Vis veswarapur College of Law, Srigandhada Kavai, Outer Ring Road, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore - 560 091 and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to prosecute his studies by way of 3 years LL.B, course.)
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Annexure-A28 to A30 No.SLC:696/ll-12 dated 26.8.2011 (1st petitioner) No.SLC 697/11-12 dated 27.8.2011 (2nd petitioner) and No.SLC 698/11- 12 dated 27.8.2011 (3ld petitioner) issued by second respondent i.e., Sarvodaya Law College, 867, Vasantha Complex, Dr. Modi Hospital Road, West of Chord Road, Bangalore - 86 and direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to prosecute their studies by way of 3 years LL.B. Course.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the admission notification dated 29.4.2013 issued by fust respondent as per Annexure-D and also to quash the impugned endorsement dated 7.8.2013 issued by second respondent vide Annexure-C and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the admission notification dated 29.4.2013 issued by first respondent as per Annexure-E and also to quash the impugned endorsement dated 13.7.2013 issued by second respondent vide Annexure-D and etc;)
(Prayer: This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the admission notification dated 29.4.2013 issued by the first respondent, as per Annexure- E and also to quash the impugned endorsement dated 30.7.2015, issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-D and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the admission notification dated 29.4.2013 issued by the first respondent as per Annexure-E and also to quash the impugned endorsement dated 5.8.2013 issued by second respondent vide Annexure-D and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the admission notification dated 29.4.2013 issued by respondent no.1 vide Annexure-E and also to quash the impugned endorsement dated 23.8.2013 issued by 2na respondent vide Annexure-D and etc;)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pursue his studies by way of 3 years LLB Course.)
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the admission notification dated 29.4.2013 issued by respondent no.1 vide Annexure-E and also to quash the impugned endorsement dated 28.8 2013 issued by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-D and etc;)
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 16.11.2013 issued by Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-H, and etc.)
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.
| SL. No. | Writ Petition Nos. | Name of the Petitioner/s | Age | Qualification | University | Remarks |
| 1 | W.P.No. 19608/2010 | Deepika Bhat .S | 29 | 10+Diploma+ M.Com | Karnataka State Open University | No Three yearDegree |
| 2 | W.P. No.23-138/20.11 | Manjunatha .S | 23 | 10+B.A. | Correspo- dence Course, in Bangalore University | No Pre- University Course |
| 3 | W.P.No.36167/2011 | Sharma .J | 30 | 10+PUC+MA | Karnataka State Open University | No 3 year degree |
| 4 | W.P.No.27457/2011 | Padma .A | 26 | 10+B.A. | Bangalore University | No Pre- UniversityCourseMarks card not furnished |
| 5 | W.P.No.23011/2011 | Ajay Kumar .N | 26 | 10+B.A. | Karnataka State Open University | No Pre- University Course Marks cards not furnised |
| 6 | W.P.No.28605/2011 | Naveen Kumar N | 27 | 10+B.A. | Correspondence course inBangaloreUniversity | No Pre- University Course |
| 7 | W.P.No.28749/2010 | Chandrasegaran .N | 30 | 10+PUC+M.A | Mysore UniversityMvsore | No Threeyeardegree |
| 8 | W.P.No.22512/2010 | G. Vijayakumari | 28 | 10+B.A. | Bangalore University under distance education | No Pre-University Course |
| 9 | W.P.No.23993/2010 | Shiva Swamy M.P | 30 | 10+M A. | Karnataka State Open University | No Pre- University Course and 3-year Degree |
| 10 | W.P.No.33831/2010 | H. Manjunath | 27 | 10 + B.A. | Bangalore University Corres-pondence course | No Pre-UniversityCourse |
| 11 | W.P.No.28001/2012 | Arpitba B.N. | 28 | 10+PUC+B.A | Bangalore University Corres-pondence course | Passed Pre-University Course in March2011 and 3 year Degree in March 2012 |
| 12 | W.P.No.30641/2013 | Sharon I Princilly | 24 | 10+PUC+B.A | Alagappa University Distance Education | No 1st year Pre-University Course |
| 13 | W.P.No.36163/2013 | R.S .Muthalingaiah | 24 | 10 + B.A | Karnataka State Open University | No Pre-University Course |
| 14 | W.P.No. 18630/2010 | Ashok M Patil | 41 | 10 + M.A. | Karnataka State Open University | No Pre-University Course and 3-yearDegree |
| 15 | W.P.No.24710/2012 | D.G. Purnesha | 42 | 10 + B.A. | Bangalore University Corres-pondence course | No Pre- University Course |
| 16 | W.P.No.24984/2010 | Lokesha M.P. | 42 | 10+PUC+M.A | Karnataka State Open University | No 3-year Degree |
| 17 | W.P.No.24750/2011 | Shreerangarajan M.C | 41 | 10+PUC+M.A | Karnataka State Open University | No 3-year Degree |
| 18 | W.P.No.40064/2012 | Krishna .G | 36 | 10+I.T.I+ M.Com | Karnataka State Open University | No Pre- University Course and 3-year Degree |
| 19 | W.P.No.27458/2011 | Abdul Suhail Ahmed | 31 | 10 + B.A | Bangalore University | No Pre-University CourseMarks Cards not forth-coming |
| 20 | W.P.No.33654/2011 | T.S. Vishalakshi | 37 | B.A. | Annamalai University | No Pre-UniversityCourse |
| 21 | W.P.Nos.29852- 854/2009 | 1. G. Keshava2. R. Rekha3. T.J. Joy Joseph | 433233 | B.A.B.A.B.A. | Bangalore UniversityBangalore UniversityRajasthanVidyapeeth University | No Pre-UniversityCourseNo Pre-University Course No Pre- University Course Marks cards not forth-coming |
| 22 | W.P.No.27800/2009 | B. Vedavathi | 32 | B.A. | Karnataka State Open University | No Pre-University Course |
| 23 | W.P.No.26145/2010 | A.A. Raja | 34 | M.A. | Madurai Kamaraj University | No Pre- Umversity Course and 3-year Degree |
| 24 | W.P.No.26856/2010 | Rajasekaran .N | 34 | 10 + B.A. | Annamalai University | No Pre-University Course |
| 25 | W.P.No.31424/2010 | Khaleel Razi | 33 | 10 + B.A. | Maulana Azad National UrduUniversity | No Pre-University Course |
| 26 | W.P.No.35430/2012 | Isaya .B | 31 | 10 + B.A. | Bangalore University | No Pre-UniversityCourse |
| 27 | W.P.No.23475/2012 | R. Lima | 37 | 10 + B.A. | Karnataka State Open University | No Pre-University CourseMarks cards not forth-coming |
| 28 | W.P.No.38920/2012 | Sadasivam .M | 44 | 10+ Higher Secondary Course Certificate + B.Com. | Tamil NaduOpenUniversity | He passed 12th(Sep2011) after Degree (April 2011) |
| 29 | W.P.No.39806/20.12 | Ravi .D | 47 | 10 + P.U.C+ M.A | Annamalai Open University System | No 3-year Degree |
| 30 | W.P.No.32476/2013 | Padmanabha Jathila | 40 | B.A. | Sikkim Manipal Open University | No10+Pre-University Course |
| 31 | W.P.No.35867/2013 | Suma | 37 | 10 + B.A. | Bangalore University | No Pre-University CourseMarks cards not produced |
| 32 | W.P.No.38792/2013 | Jagadeesha .M | 34 | 10+P.U.C+ B.A. | Periyar University | Has done B.A. in one sitting |
| 33 | W.P.No.38794/2013 | Yeshvantha N.V. | 53 | 10 + B.A. | KarnatakaOpenUniversity | No Pre-UniversityCourseS.S.L.C. Marks card not forth-coming |
| 34 | W.P.No.27891/2010 | G.S. Hari Prasad | 36 | 10+B.A. | Bangalore University | No Pre-University Course |
| 35 | W.P.No.21717/2011 | H. Manjunath | 27 | 10 + B.A. | Bangalore University | No Pre-University Course |
| 36 | W.P.No.27992/2010 | Yashodamma | 26 | Degree | - | Marks cards not forth-coming. Below45%(43%) |
| 37 | W.P.No.25530/2011 | Saroja .G | 27 | 10+PUC+BA. | Bangalore University | Below 45%(43.06%) |
| 38 | W.P.No.27217- 220/2010 | 1. Anlo .A2. Elavarasan .A3. Lohithasvan P.V.4. T.M. Mukesh | 37394432 | B.Com and M.Com.10+PUC+B.A. and M.A.B.Com., M.Com. and M.C.AB.A. and M.A. | Annamalai UniversityMadurai Kamaraj UniversityCalicut UniversityManonmania m Sundaranar University | Below 45%(41.62%) Below 45% (37.14%) Below 45% Below 45% All the marks cards are not furnished |
| 39 | W.P.No.23681/2012 | B.G. Anantharaju | 40 | 10+P.U.C.+ B.Com | Bangalore University | Below45% |
| 40 | W.P.No.36004/2013 | S. Suresh | 30 | 10+P.U.C.+ B.A. | Annamalai University | Below45% |
| 41 | W.P.No.36479/2010 and W.P.Nos.36695-707/2010 | 1. Shankarappa M.A. | 28 | B.A. and M.A. | Bangalore University | Below 45% (37.77%) |
| 2. R. Pramod | 37 | P.U.C+B.A. + M.A. | University of Madras | Below 45%(44. 33%) | ||
| 3. Sarasa | 46 | M.A. | Karnataka State Open University | 44.6% | ||
| 4. Karthik Nethaji .B | 28 | B.Com. | Alagappa University | 44.% | ||
| 5. unnikrishnan .P | 40 | B.Com | University of Calicut | 44% | ||
| 6. S. Crimson | 30 | B.A. | Annamalai University | 41.64% | ||
| 7. V.R. Pradeep | 50 | Pre-DegreeExamination +B.A. | University of Calicut | 34.73% | ||
| 8. Y.G. Sharath | 33 | B.A. | Bangalore University | 44.62% | ||
| 9. N. Vijay Gowda | 20 | P.U.C. | P.U.C.Board | 43.66% | ||
| 10 Vikyath .B | 20 | P.U.C. | P.U.C.Board | 43.16% | ||
| 11 Sabumon K.P. | 28 | Pre-Degree Examination | MahatmaGandhiUniversity | 43% | ||
| 12 P. Marimuthu | 50 | 10 + P.U.C. | University of Madras | 52.66% (Agebarred) | ||
| 13. Jayashankar .C | 49 | P.U.C. | - | 39.83% | ||
| 14 R.H. Sathish | 35 | P.U.C. | - | 42.16% | ||
| 42 | W.P.No.25963/2010 | Praveen Kumar .K | 25 | B.Com. | Mangalore University | Below 45%(42.52%) |
| 43 | W.P.No.51053/2012 | Yogesh Kumar.G | 33 | 10+PU.C.+E. Com. | Bangalore University | Below 45%(44.22%) |
| 44 | W.P.No.23870/2013 | Aruna .N | 30 | 10-1 B.Com | Karnataka State Open University | P.U.C. not done |
| 45 | W.P.No.25760/2013 | Vasanthraj | 28 | 10+P.U C.+B. A. | Bangalore University | Below 45%(43.93%) |
| 46 | W.P.No.29360/2013 | Gireesha | 29 | 10+P.U.C.+B. Com. | Mangalore University | Below 45%(41.47%) |
| 47 | W.P.No.58997/2013 | Saroja .L | 33 | 10+P.U.C.+B. A. | Bangalore University | 57.25% Passed PUC after completion of Degree |
| 48 | W.P.No.26421/2012 | Madhu Kumar M.R. | 32 | 10+P.U.C.+ B.A. | Bangalore University | Below 45%(43.62%) |
| 49 | W.P.No.26422/2012 | Ramakrishna .S | 47 | 10+P.U.C.+ B.Com. | Bangalore University | Below45%(42.7%) |
| 50 | W.P.No.34999/2012 | Devaraju .C | 40 | 10+P.U.C.+ B.Sc. | Mysore University | Below45%(403%) |
| 51 | W.P.No.27471/2011 | N.S. Gumpada Swamy | 40 | 10+P.U.C.+ B.A. | Bangalore University | Below 45%(37.12%) |
| 52 | W.P.No.33687/2011 | 1. Mr. S. Madhu | 37 | B.A. | Bangalore University | Below 45% |
| 2. Mr. Dilip Kumar .Y | 38 | B.A. | Bangalore University | |||
| 3. Ms. Leela B.S. | 25 | B.Com | Bangalore University | |||
| 53 | W.P.No.36003/2013 | S. Shivaprakash | 49 | P.U.C. + B.Com. | Bangalore University | Below 45%(41.68%) |
| 54 | W.P.No.31793/2013 | M. Venkatesan | 39 | 10+P.U.C.+ B.Com | Madurai Kamaraj University | Below45%(42.9%) |
| 55 | W.P.No.34123/2013 | Veena Priyadarshini | 33 | 10+P.U.C.+B. Sc. | Mysore University | Below45% (43.7%) |
| 56 | W.P.No.35899/2013 | Leena K.O. | 39 | 1O+Pre Degree University of Calicut + B.Com. | University of Calicut | Below45%(44%) |
| 57 | W.P.No.38127/2013 | Mohan B.N. | 46 | B.Com | Bangalore University | Below 45%(42.37%) |
| 58 | W.P.No.38314/2013 | K.N. Amarnath | 46 | 10+P.U.C.+B. Com | Bangalore University | Below 45%(41.25%) |
| 59 | W.P.No.38596/2013 | Mohammed Youmis Pasha | 38 | 10+P.U.C.+B. Com | Bangalore University | Below45% (41.8%) |
| 60 | W.P.No.56525/2013 | Madhu Malathi .S | 32 | 10+P.U.C.+ B.A.+ M.A. | Bangalore University | PassedPUC(March2013), after Degree (April 2005) |
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.
"BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
J.R.Sharma 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area
(M.A ,/ / mž mha)New Delhi -110 002.
Officiating Secretary
Date: 20.12.2010
LE Cir. . 02/2010
To,
The Registrars/Decm/Director
of all Universities, Deemed to be Universities,
And Law Schools in India
Sub: "Law laid down regarding admission to LL.B. Courses and relevance of M.A. (External or distance Mode) for purpose of Admission and direction to Bar Council of India".
Ref: BCI Letter No.BCI.D:1823/2010 (LE) dated 30.11.2010 (Copy enclosed ).
As various Universities and Law Schools have sought for clarification on the above circular, the Bar Council of India clarifies the last para of the circular as follows: -
In view of the Bar Council of India, l egal Education Rules - 2008, University Grants Commission Act and Regulations, decision of Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India and subsequent decision of High Court of Tamil Nadu, all Universities, deemed to be Universities, Law Schools and others offering LL.B Courses are informed that applicants who have obtained +2 high secondary pass certificate or First degree certificate after prosecuting studies in distance cr correspondence method shall also be considered as eligible for admission in the integrated five year course or three year LL.B course, as the case may be. However, the applicants who have obtained 10+2 or graduaiion/post graduation through open universities system directly without having any basic qualifications for prosecuting such studies arc noi eligible for admission in law courses.
You are further informed not to admit any candidate to the LL.B. course having any Degree contrary to University Grants Commission Act and Regulations and also Bar Council of India, Rules of Legal Education - 2008.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
Encl: As above (J.R. Sharma)
Officiating Secretary "
It is contended that the colleges imparting education in law are required to be affiliated to the BCI, a statutory body corporate, constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961
(Hereinafter referred to as the '1961 Act', for brevity) . The BCI has made Rules on standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law for the purposes of enrolment as advocates and for inspection of Universities for recognizing the degree in law, under Sections 7(l)(h),(i), 24(l)(c)(iii) and 49(1 )(af). (ag) and (d) of the 1961 Act. The said Rules are known as the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (Hereinafter referred to as the '2008 Rules', for brevity) and are made in consultation with Universities and State Bar Councils.
Under Rule 4 of tiie 2008 Rules, there are two courses of law leading to Bachelors Degree in Law :
(i) A three year degree course which can be undertaken after obtaining a Bachelors' Degree in any discipline of study from a University, or an equivalent qualification recognized by the BCI. And provided that the admission to such a course is obtained from a University, whose degree in law is recognized by the BCI for the purpose of enrolment.
(ii) A double - degree integrated course combining Bachelors' Degree course together with the Bachelors' degree course in iaw, of a total five year duration.
Rule 5 prescribes the eligibility for admission; and an explanation appended thereto specifically excludes applicants who have obtained 10 + 2 or graduation/post graduation through the Open Universities system, directly, without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies, are not eligible for admission in the law courses.
Rule 7 stipulates the minimum marks in the qualifying examination for admission. The minimum not being below 45% of the total marks in case of general category applicants and 40% of the total marks in case of applicants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the eligibility for admission is regulated under Rule 5. The Proviso to Section 5 provides that where any applicant has obtained the First Degree Certificate after prosecuting studies in distance education or a correspondence course, such applicant shall also be considered eligible for admission to the three years LL.B course. The explanation to Rule 5 provides that the applicants who have obtained 10+2 or graduation through Open University System, directly, without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission to the law courses. The interpretation of the Rule, more particularly, the explanation has far reaching ramifications in as much as the eligibility for prosecuting sacb studies is with reference to the undertaking of the gradation through Open University System. Prosecuting studies through distance education or on correspondence and the qualification and the eligibility prescribed for undertaking the same having been recognised and accepted generally, a degree holder through the distance education system being denied the eligibility for admission to the 3ld year LL.B Degree is arbitrary. It is hence contended that the BCI Circular is onerous and illegal. And that the consequential notifications issued by the University and the Colleges require to be set aside.
Alternatively, it is contended that the correspondence courses are designed as a social beneficial measure to accommodate people being educated at all stages of their lives, particularly, with reference to the pre-university and graduation levels. The eligibility criteria for admission to the law courses being a Degree, graduation either through a correspondence course or by a regular course, would not make any difference in the natuie of graduation acquired in as much as the syllabi are almost the same and the nature of valuation which would be undertaken at the examinations in respect of both types of graduations are the same. When a person is conferred with the benefit of graduation with a certain eligibility criteria as to age or otherwise by distance education, it is to promote a person who is interested in prosecuting his studies at any stage of his life. Notwithstanding the validity or inability of such person to undertake the studies in the circumstances he is placed. In other words, the discrimination against a person having graduated from an Open University after having completed PUC or 10+2 and a person who has graduated without the PUC or 10 +2 has no basis in as much as the yardstick for admission or theeligibility for admission, is prescribed as being a Degree by a recognized university. A distinction that is sought to be drawn by incorporating the "explanation" to Rule 5, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
A person who has graduated after completing PUC by correspondence does not have any greater advantage or greater skill or a greater intellectual ability than a person who would have completed graduation without PUC or 10+2. It is contended that there is absolutely no basis for this discrimination when the Universities are permitted to impart distance education enabling graduation. It should be given due credit as being an exercise of the Government of its solemn duty to render social justice and the educational upliftment of the citizens at large. If the careers of such students are scuttled, it will be a failure on the part of the State machinery in implementing the constitution in its true letter and spirit in brining about social justice, equity and empowerment. The constitutional mandate of the educational upliflmeni should be kept in view and therefore, it is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the exolanation to Rule 5 should be declared as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitratory and violative of Article 14 and 15 of ihe Constitution.
It is contended that the 2008 Rules prescribing eligibility criteria and imposing the same on the law colleges is beyond the purview of the BCI.
It is pointed out that the strict prescription has resulted in creating an unfair disparity between candidates from the stream of formal education and that of non-formal education , when it is the end result, that would be the deciding factor as to the merit of a law graduate.
It is contended that in framing the 2008 Rules and in prescribing the eligibility it was required of the BCI to hold consultations with several entities and to have arrived at a consensus before translating any such eligibility criteria and incorporating the same into the Rules, it is asserted that there is no indication as to any such consultative procedure having been followed, prior to the Rules being enforced.
Incidentally, with the creation of the Karnataka State Law University, under tne Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KSLU Act', for brevity) all law colleges in the State of Karnataka, which were affiliated to one or the other University were required to be affiliated to the KSLU, The said Act confers the power to make Regulations regarding the Scheme of examinations and conditions on which the students snail be admitted to the examinations, degrees, diplomas, certificates or other academic distinctions. As the Academic Council was yet to be constituted, the first Vice Chancellor had taken upon himself the task of framing Regulations governing the Admission of candidates to the Three year LL.B. Degree Course. It is contended by the petitioners that the said Regulations are a virtual reproduction of the 2008 Rules referred to hereinabove and it is contended that the framing of the same is without authority of law, in as much as, the first Vice Chancellor having framed the same has exceeded his brief in exercising power under Section 86 of ihe KSLU Act, providing for Transitory powers.
Several authorities are cited in support of the above contentions.
4. 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.
5. In the light of the above contentions, the points that arise for consideration in these petitions are :
a. Whether the denial of admission, of the several petitioners, to the Three Year LL.B. Degree Course, with reference to the eligibility criteria and the minimum marks, prescribed by the BCI under the 2008 Rules can be sustained.
b. Whether the denial of admission to Under Graduates and Post Graduates who had not pursued the 10+2+3 pattern of graduation or on the ground of not having secured the minimum marks in the qualifying exam as stipulated by the KSLU, was justified.
It is a common feature ihat the petitioners have been denied admission to the Three year LL.B. Degree Course , on the ground that they are ineligible for admission with reference to the Rules framed by the BCI.
The BCI has issued the following directive, addressed to all Universities, Deemed to be Universities and Law Schools in India, to the effect that:
"¦¦ applicants who have obtained 10+2 or graduation/post graduation through open universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in law courses.
You are further informed not to admit any candidate to the LL.B. course having any Degree contrary to University Grants Commission Act and Regulations and also Bar Council of India , Rules of Legal Education - 2008. "
This, it is stated, is issued not only with reference to the 2008 Rules and the UGC Act and Regulations; but also with reference to a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, Civil Appeal No.4173 with Civil Appeal No.4189-4191of 2008 and a subsequent decision of the Madras High Court in G.Vikraman Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu W.P.No.26257/009.
At the hearing, there are several authorities cited by the parties which certainly do indicate that the role of the BCI and the scope of its functions vis-a-vis the maintenance of the standards of legal education has been considered by the Apex court and the High Courts, over the decades. It is hence useful to have an overview of the case law before addressing the points pertaining to BCI and its justification in prescribing the eligibility criteria for admission.
In the case of O.N.Mohindroo v. Bar Council of Delhi - AIR 1968 SC 888. The question that fell for consideration, before a Five judge Bench, in the said appeal concerned, the interpretation of Entries 77 and 78 of List I and Entry 26 of List III under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is observed in the judgment that the Advocates Act, 1961, was passed to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and the object of ihe Act was to constitute one common Bar for the whole country and to provide a machinery for its regulated functioning. In its pith and substance the enactment concerns itself with the qualifications, enrolment, right to practice and discipline of the advocates.
In the case of Baldev Raj Sharma vs. Bar Council of India, AIR 1989 SC 1541, in the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Apex Court, the petitioner had questioned the rejection of his application for enrolment as an advocate.
The facts were as follows:
The Kanpur University was, at the relevant point of time, conferring two distinct degrees, LL.B. (General), which was a two year course, and LL.B.(Professional) which was a three year course. A person who held a LL.B. (General) Degree was eligible for admission to the LL.B. (Professional) Degree - third year. The LL.B. (General) Degree could be pursued also as a non-collegiale student. The petitioner after obtaining the LL.B. (General) Degiee as a private candidate, joined the LL.B. (Professional) Course- third year as a regular student, he appeared for the examination and was successful. The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana denied enrolment and hence the petition was filed
It was held by the Apex Court thus :
"¦¦ The Bar Council of India has framed Rules under the Advocates Act, 1961. Rule 1(1 )(c) of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 provides that except as provided in s.24(l)(c)(iiia) of the Advocates Act a degree in law obtained from any University in the territory of India after 12th March, 1967 shall not be recognised for the purposes of s.24(l)(c)(iii) of the Act utiles? the conditions specified there are fulfilled, including the condition "that the course of study in law has been by regular, attendance at the requisite number of lectures, tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised by a University". These rules were replaced by a fresh set of rules in 1984 and the new Rule 1(1 )(c) is almost identical. The Rule clearly requires that the course of study in law should have been by regular attendance for the requisite number of lectures, tutorials and moot courts and practical training. The Rule envisages that for the entire period of the lav7 course there must be a regular attendance of the student before he can satisfy the conditions necessary for enrolment as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Rules amplify what is intended in s. 24(l)(c)(iii) of the Act. The three years' course of study envisaged by that subclause in the Act intends that the three years' course of study in law must be pursued by maintaining regular attendance. We are unable to say that there is any inconsistency between the Act and the Rule. So also in a case falling under cl. (iii) of s. 24(1 )(c) of the Act, a course of study in law must be pursued for not less than two academic years in terms of that sub-clause and Rule 1(1 )(c) will apply to such a case also. There is a substantial difference between a course of study pursued as a regular student and a course of study pursued as a private candidate. The policy underlying the relevant provisions of the Bar Council Rules indicates the great emphasis laid on regular attendance at the law classes. The conditions arc specifically spelt out when the Act is read along with the Rules. When so read, it is plain that a candidate desiring enrolment as an advocate under the Advocates Act must fulfil the conditions mentioned in s.24(l)(c)(iii) or s. 24(1 )(c)(iiia) read with Rule l(T)(c) of the bar Council of India Rules, 1975. In the present ease the petitioner failed to do so. His application for enrolment was rightly rejected."
In the case of Bar Council of India and another Aparna Basu Mallick and others, (1994 )2 SCC 102, the view taken in Baldev Sharma's case, supra, was reiterated thus :
" Now under Section 7, one of the functions of the Bar Council of India is to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrollment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect the Universities. This power of recognition of Universities is conferred where the degree of law of that University entitles the degree holder for enrollment as an advocate. Under Section 24(1 )(c)(iii) which is relevant for this purpose, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he fulfill the conditions of having undergone a three year course of study in law from any University in India which is recognised by the Bar Council of India. Sub-section (3) of Section 24 is an exception clause to sub-section (1) as it begins with a non- obstante clause which entitles a person to be enrolled as an advocate under special rule made in that behalf. No such rule was relied upon as having been made under sub-section (3) of Section 24. Section 49(1 )(d) empowers the Bar Council of India to make rules which may prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose. If the acquisition of a degree in law is essential for being qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, it is obvious that the Bar Council of India must have the authority to prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in the country. On a conjoint reading of these provisions of the Act with Rule 1(1 )(c) in Part IV of the Rules which prescribe the standards for legal education and recognition of degrees in law as well as admission as advocates, it is difficult to understand how one can say that the said Rule is inconsistent with any of the pro visions of the Act. What Rule 1(1 )(c) requires is that the course of study in law must be completed by regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures, tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised by a University. As pointed out earlier, this Court in Baldev Raj Sharma case, AIR 1989 SC 1541 pointed out that there was a substantial difference between a course of studies pursued as a regular student and the course of studies pursued as a private candidate. The policy underlying the relevant provisions of the Rules is to lay emphasis on regular attendance of the law classes. It is, therefore, clear that a candidate desiring enrollment as an advocate must fulfill the conditions set out under the relevant clause of Section 24 read with Rule 1(1 )(c) of the Rules."
In Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and others vs. Bar Council of India and another, (1995) 1 SCC 732, the issue that arose for consideration was. the validity of a new Rule added to the Bar Council of India Rules bv the BCI. The rule read as follows :
" A person who has completed the age of 45 years on the date on which he submits his application for his enrolment as an advocate to the State Bar Council shall not be enrolled as an advocate."
It was answered thus :
"Can the rule be saved under any other provision of the Act? As stated earlier the Act in Section 24(1 )(b) provides that the person who seeks enrolment as an advocate must have completed the age of twenty-one years. Nowhere does the Act provide the maximum age beyond which a person shall not be entitled to enrolment as an advocate nor does the Act make any specific provision empowering the Bar Council of India to frame such a rule. Reliance was, however, placed on clause (ag) of Section 49(1) which reads as under:
"(ag) The class or category, of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates."
Can persons who have completed 45 years of age be said to constitute a class or category to entitle the Bar Council of India to debar them from being enrolled as advocates? Rule 49(1) empowers ihe Bar Council of India to make rules for discharging its functions under the Acts and in particular those enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) thereof. None of the functions under Section 7 specifically provides for laying down such a. condition debarring persons of a certain age group from enrolment as advocates. The clause relied upon is couched in positive terms, namely, it says the rules may prescribe the class or category of persons who may be admitted to the legal profession. Therefore, under ihis rule the class or category of persons 'entitled to be enrolled' as advocates may be prescribed. The rule can, therefore, specify the class or category of persons 'entitled' to be enrolled as an advocates, but the rule gives no indication that it can debar persons belonging to a certain age group from being enrolled as advocates. Where a provision is couched in positive language and is in the nature of an enabling provision, there is no canon of construction which says that by necessary implication the rule making authority can make a provision disentitling admission or enrolment to the profession. Such a submission is difficult to countenance.
10. But the larger question needs to be answered and that is whether the said clause applies to persons belonging to a certain age group. Section 28(1 )(d) of the Act authorises a State Bar Council to make ri'les prescribing the conditions subject to which a person may be admitted as an advocate. The power to specify the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates is conferred on the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1 )(ag) and on the Central Government under Section 49A of the Act. The role which a State Bar Council has to play undeSection 28 is distinct from that the Bar Council of India has to play under Section 49(1 )(ag) of the Act, in that, after the class or category is identified, they do not automatically get admitted or enrolled they still have to abide by the requirements for admission to the State roll. Therefore, apart from a class or group being declared 'entitled to enrolment', the other conditions or norms evolved by the State Bar Council for entry of the individual on its role would have to be satisfied.
11. It seems parliament while enacting the Act created agencies at the State level as well as at the Central level in the form of State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India and invested them with rule making powers on diverse matters touching the legal profession, presumably because it must have realised that matter pertaining to the profession are best left to informed bodies comprising of members of the said profession. However, while doing so it provided for basic substantive matters, e.g., eligibility for entry into the profession (Section 24) disqualification for enrolment (Section 24A), authority entitled to grant admission (Sections 25 and 26), the authority which can remove any name from the roll (Section 26A), etc., and placed them within the domain of a State Bar Council. Thus it is the State Bar Council which alone must decide on the question of enrolment of an applicant on its roll. Under Section 24 a person who is a citizen of India and possesses a degree in law becomes qualified to be admitted as an advocate if he has completed twenty one years of age, subject ofcourse to the other provisions of the Act. No doubt he must fulfil the other conditions specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council (Section 24(1 )(e) ). Every person whose name is entered in the list of advocates has a right to practise in all courts including the Supreme Court, before any tribunal or other authority. It is, therefore, within the exclusive domain of the Staie Bar Councils to admit persons as advocates on their rolls or to remove their names from the rolls. There is no provision in Chapter III dealing with admission and enrolment of advocates which restricts the entry of those who have completed 45 years as advocates. Nor has the State Bar Council made any such rule under its rule making power.
12. There is no specific provision in Section 7 of the Act which enumerates the functions of the Bar Council of India empowering it to fix the maximum age beyond which entry in to the profession would be barred. 'That is why reliance is placed on the rule making power of the Bar Council of India enshrined in Section 49. Thai Section empowers the making of rule by the Bar Council of India for discharging its functions' under the Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates. The functions of the Bar Council of India enumerated in Section 7 do not envisage laying down a stipulated disqualifying persons otherwise qualified from entering the legal profession merely because they have completed the age of 45 years. On the other hand Section 24A was introduced by Section 19 of Act 60 of 1973 with effect from 31st January, 1974 to disqualify certain persons from entering the legal profession for a limited period. By the impugned rule every person even if qualified but has completed 45 years of age is debarred for all times from enrolment as an advocate. If it had been possible to restrict the entry of even those class or category of persons referred to in Section 24A by a mere rule made by the Bar Council of India, where was the need for a statutory amendment? That is presumably because matters concerning disqualification even for a limited period was considered to be falling outside the ken of rule making power, being a matter of public policy. It is difficult to accept the interpretation that all those above the age group of 45 years constitute class within the scope of clause (ag) of Section 49(1) of the Act to permit the Bar Council of India to debar their entry into the profession for all times. In the guise of making a rule the Bar Council of India is virtually introducing an additional clause in Section 24 of the Act prescribing art upper age ceiling of completed age of 45 years beyond which no person shall be eligible for enrolment as an advocate or is inserting an additional clause in Section 24A of the Aci prescribing a disqualification, Viewed from either point of view we are clearly of the opinion ihat the rule making power under clause (ag) of Section 49(1) of the A ct does not confer any such power on ike Bar Council of India. We are unable to subscribe to the view that all those who have completed the age of 45 years and are otherwise eligible to be enrolled as advocates constitute a class or category which can be disqualified as single block from entering the profession. Besides, as stated above clause (ag) identification and specification of a class or category of persons 'entitled' to be enrolled as advocates and not 'disentitled' to be enrolled as advocates. We, therefore, are of the opinion the impugned rule is beyond the rule making power of the Bar Council of India and is, therefore, ultra vires the Act."
In Bar Council of India vs. Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1342, the facts were as follows :
The bone of contention in the Writ Petitions was whether a person who did not possess a degree or a postgraduate degree in law and was not qualified to practise law, could be appointed as the Principal of a Law College and whether it was not essential to have a degree in law before one could be appointed as Principal of a Law College. The BCI was not a party to the Writ Petitions. The High Court took the view that going by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, "the University Act"), such an appointment could be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 or in the Rules framed by the BCI. The High Court proceeded on the basis that there was a conflict between the two enactments, namely, the University Act and the Advocates Act and in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, the University Act, the later State Act with the assent of the President, would prevail over the Advocates Act and since appointment to the post of a Principal of a College affiliated to a University was governed by the University Act, the appointment of respondent Mo.5 as Principal of the Law College was liable to be upheld. It was also held that the BCI did not have any control regarding legal education. The order transferring respondent No. 5 away from the post of Principal of the Law College was consequently set aside. No notice was also issued to the BCI, the apex professional body of Advocates, before taking such a decision. However, taking note of the consequences of the decision rendered by the High Court, the Bar Council of India had filed the appeals challenging the decision of the High Court. It was held thus by the apex court:
"The aim of most of the students who enter the law college, is to get enrolled as Advocates and practice law in the country. To do that, they have necessarily to have a degree from a University that is recognized by the Bar Council of India. Therefore, the court, in a situation like the present one, has to ask itself whether it could not harmoniously construe the relevant provisions and reach a conclusion consistent with the main aim of seeking or imparting legal education So approached, nothing stands in the way of the court coming to the conclusion that though under the relevant Staiute of the University as amended, theoretically, it may be possible to appoint a Doctor of Philosophy or a Doctor of Science as the Principal of a Lavv' College, taking into account the requirements of the Advocates Act, the Rules of the Bar Council of India and the main purpose of legal education, the Court would be justified in holding that as regards the post of the Principal of a Law College, it would be necessary for the proposed incumbent also to satisfy the requirements of the Rules of the Bar Council of India. Such a harmonious understanding of the position recognizing the realities of the situation, would justify the conclusion that a Doctorate holder in any of the law subjects could alone be appointed as the Principal of a Law College."
In the case of B.Mallesham v. The Bar council of India (WP 16585/2000 and Connected matters, dated 31:12.2009), a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dealing with a batch of writ petitions raising the very issue of eligibility criteria has taken note of the back ground in which the 2008 Rules came to be framed, thus :
"27. In exercise of rule-making power, the BCI framed Rules, 2008 prescribing the eligibility for admission into Three Year Law Degree Course and Integrated Degree Programme.
28. The Legal Education Committee under the Chairmanship, Mr. Justice A.P.Mishra, Former Judge of Supreme Court, consisting of Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court, namely. Justice, A.S.Anand, Justice S.C.Aga'rwal, Justice K.N.Saikia, Justice A.P.Mishra and Justice V.S.Sirpurkar and also Justice A.K.Patnaik, Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh, as members besides Dr. N.L.Mitra, former Director NLSIU, Bangalore and National Law School, Jodhpur apart from members of the Bar Council of India after due deliberations/consultations for nearly two years prepared draft rules and curriculum and sent to the Universities imparting Legal Education and State Bar Councils as a part of consultation as provided for under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Bar Council of India through its Resolution No.l 10/2008, dated 14.10.2009 accepted the revised rules with effect from 2009-2010."
And on merits of the petitions it was pronounced thus :
"44. It is not disputed that all the National Law Schools are insisting 10+2 to prosecute five years law course, but the standards are not uniform in all the law colleges where five years law degree is offered. Therefore, to have uniform standards in the law course either it is five years or three years, the BCI was vested with the jurisdiction to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and confer with the power to make the rules for laying the standards of legal education in consultation with the Universities regulate admission to the law course prescribing the qualification to get admission. When the degree obtained by formal or non-formal methods, though it is of ihree years duration, both cannot be equated for the purpose of admission into law course. Therefore, graduation degree obtained through regular class is a different class than those who obtained graduation without prosecuting 10+2 qualification. Therefore, the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
45. Admittedly, the task to maintain legal standards was referred to an expert body like "Legal Education Committee" and the Committee after due deliberation with eminent personnel connected with the law course suggested standards to be maintained to meet the global challenges, The students who obtained graduation through regular course are well equipped and their accent is different in information and resources once they arc in law practice, whereas the students who obtained bachelor's degree under Open University will not be equipped with rare degrees of qualities. Therefore, the curriculum, which was finalisd by the BCI, cannot be te 7^Cct CIS perverse or irrational to the object sought to be achieved nor can it be termed as arbitrary and illegal. '*
In Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, (2009) 4 SCC 102, interpretation and application of the University Grants Commission (the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of the first degree through non-formal/distance education in the faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences) Regulations, 1985, framed by the University Grants Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 vis-a-vis the provisions of the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, was in question in these appeals.
In the course of discussion in the judgment, the following observation of the Supreme court is significant and is to be noted for the purposes of the case on hand:
"The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India whereas the Open University Aci was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III thereof The question of repugnancy of the provisions of the said two Acts, therefore, does not arise. It is true that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Open University Act shows that the formal system of education had not been able to provide an effective means to equalize educational opportunities. The system is rigid inter alia in respect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of subjects are also inflexible.
41. Was the alternative system envisaged under the Open university Act in substitution of the formal system, is the question. In our opinion, in the matter of ensuring the standard of education, it is not. The distinction between a formal system and an informal system is in the mode and manner in which education is imparted.",
In Sakthiram v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (WP 26257/2009 and connected cases) dated 16.4 2010, being a batch of writ petitions before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, the following points were framed for consideration in the said case :
"(i) Whether the Bides of Legal Education, 2008 are in accordance with the powers conferred under Section 7 (l)(h) and (i):. 2 (1) 1(3) 3(a) and 49(la) (ag) (af) and (d) of Advocates Act, 1961 or not?
(ii) Whether the explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules cf Legal Education, 2008 is beyond the rule making power conferred on the Bar Council of India under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and hence becomes ultra vires and unconstitutional.
(iii) Is the condition imposed by way of explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 is contrary to Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 by which powers are vested only with the State Bar Council.
(iv)Is the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION AND TOURISM DEPARTMETN AND OTHERS [ (2009) 4 SCC 590] applicable to the case of the petitioners.
etc. ..."
In answering the above, the following observations made by the Court are significant. :
"23. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Sections 7, 24(1 )(c)(iii) and (iii a), 49(1 )(ag) and (ah) of the Act, clearly provide the required power and authority for the Bar Council of India to prescribe the minimum qualification, standard, inclusive of minimum marks, attendance, curriculum and other incidental qualifications to the Law University and the Law College recognised by it. Accordingly, the Bar Council of India in exercise of its power under Sections 7(1 )(h) and (i) , 24(1 )(c)(iii) and (liia), 49(1 )(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, has introduced the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which has ccme into effect from 14.09.2008 onwards.
24. A degree has been defined by the University Grants Commission Act, 1985 and the Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission. As per the said Act and Regulations, a degree has to be for a duration of three years after the completion of +2 course. However, under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, a student is permitted to undergo and complete a post graduate degree without a basic as well as a first degree. The Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Apex Court in Annamalai University represented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others, has held that 'University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and its Regulations will have overriding effect on the provisions of the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 and therefore, a degree only means a degree obtained under the above said Act. In other words, it was held that a degree obtained under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, from a Open University is noi a valid degree.
25. The petitioners herein have done their post graduation through various Open Universities and thereafter, got selected to various Law Universities and Law Colleges recognised by the Bar Council of India and completed the law course.
26. It is also not in dispute that the prospectus of the colleges also provide for the admission of the petitioners into the Law course.
27. The Bar Council of India also has passed resolutions in the year 2002 and 2007 permitting such students to enroll as advocate. However, after the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court holding that a post graduate degree obtained from the open University is not a valid degree and after the confirmation of the judgment by the Honourable Apex Court as well as making reliance upon the explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has cancelled the enrollments which were made after the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and refused to enroll the petitioners who completed the law course. The said decision was made after the resolution of the Bar Council of India to that effect. Therefore, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
28. As discussed above, a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Advocates Act, would clearly show that the Bar Council of India has got ample power and authority to regulate and control the legal education, particularly with reference to entry of a student into a law course. It is the duty of the Bar Council of India to see to it that the standard of legal education is to be maintained, sustained ana improved.
29 It is a well settled principle of law that a rule is presumed to be valid until and unless the same is set aside. In the absence of any specific challenge to the rules, in an incidental proceedings, the same cannot be questioned. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Status Spinning Mills Ltd., (2Q08) 7 SCC 353, in paragraph 31, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:
"31. Validity of the notifications on the ground that they are unreasonable has not been raised before the High Court. We, therefore, cannot go into the issue. If that be so, it is difficult to agree with Mr Parasaran that we should undertake an exercise to interpret the notifications in a manner which would not lead to unreasonableness. For the purpose of declaring a statute unconstitutional foundational facts have to be laid therefor. Grounds are required to be raised therefor. In absence thereof it would not be possible for us to enter into the debate of constitutionality of the said provisions. The Division Bench of the High Court had rightly or wrongly opined that the doctrine, of promissory estoppel has no application The fact that the said doctrine may apply even in relation to a statute is beyond any dispute as has been held by this Court in Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd., V. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 620, A.P.Steel Re- Rolling Mill Lid. (2007) 2 SCC 725, Pawan Alloys and Casting (P) Ltd. v. U.P.SEB, AIR 1997 SC 3910: (1997) 7 SCC 251 and Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and ET10, AIR 2007 SC 1984: (2007) 5 SCC 447: (2007) 4 MLJ 723."
30. However, inasmuch as the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have raised this plea that the explanation to Rule 5 to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, ultra vires the parent Act, namely, the Advocates Act, 1961, we are inclined to consider the above said issue.
31. The Division Bench of tiie Bombay High Court in Inamdar Vahab v. Symbiosis Society's law College, Pune reported in AIR 1984 BOMBAY 451, while dealing with the power of the Bar Council of India in prescribing minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination for admission to the law course, has held that such a rule having rational nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved and having passed in exercise of power under Section 7(h) and (i), 24 and 49(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, is constitutional ond intra vires the parent Act. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has observed as follows:
"... No profession can maintain high standard if it is allowed to be inundated by persons who reluctantly took up the law course because having failed to secure admission to the courses of their choice, they have nothing else to do. The prescribed minimum qualification, therefore, has a rational nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved. We also do not feel that the percentage fixed is in any manner arbitrary. It is reasonable, and more so in view of the general pattern of percentage of marks generally obtained at the qualifying examinations. We are told that practically similar qualifying standard is laid down for admission to other professional courses. There is, therefore, no substance in the challenge to the rule on the basis of which the admissions of the petitioners and others were cancelled "
32. We are in the respectful agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
xx x
37. In Bar Council of India vs Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law and others reported in JT 2006 (10) SC 603, the Honourable Apex Court was plea ded to held that the Bar Council of India is concerned with ihe standard of legal profession and the equipment of those who seek entry into those profession and it was further observed that the Universities and the State Government concerned will have to act in accordance with the requirements set down by the Bar Council of India. It was further observed that the Bar Council of India retains adequate power to control the course of studies in law, the power of inspection, the power of recognition of degrees and the power to deny enrolment to law degree holders.
38. Therefore, a reading of the above said judgment would clearly show that the Bar Council of India has got ample powers under the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
39. Inasmuch as the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, have been introduced by exercising the power under the Advocates Act, 1961, we are of the considered view thai the said rules have the legal sanction under the Advocates Act, 1961.
40. We are also of the view that explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal education. 2008, in particular, and the Rules in general, are not beyond the rule making power conferred on the Bar Council of India under Sections 7(1 )(h) and (i), 24 and 49(1) of the Advocates Act. Similarly, die said rules are not contrary to Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 A conjoint reading of Sections 7(h) and 49(1)(of), (g)and (d) of the Act, clearly gives such a power to the Bar Council of India.
41. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners made strong reliance upon two judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in (i) Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and others vs. Bar Council of India and another r eported in (1995) 1 SCC 732 and (ii) V.Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India and another reported in (1999)3 SCC 176.
42. The issue involved in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and others vs. Bar Council of India and another reported in (1995) 1 SCC 732, is as to whether the condition imposed by the Bar Council of India preventing the enrollment of a candidate who completes 45 years and above, is valid or not. Therefore, the honourable apex court was dealing with the case wherein the restriction was sought to be imposed which is after the completion of the law course. The Honourable Apex Court, after considering Sections 24, 49(1 j(ag), (all) and 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961, has held that such a power exercised by the Bar Council of India, is unconstitutional and contrary to Section 24(1) of the Act, inasmuch as Section 24(1) of the Act prescr ibes conditions for enrollment into the State Roll and therefore, the Bar Council of India does not have the power.
43. The Honourable Apex Court also considered Section 24(3)(d) of the Act, by holding that the said sub¬section can only be used to qualify a person who was otherwise disqualified under Section 24(1 )of the Act. Hence, it is clear that the Honourable Apex Court was dealing with the case where the Bar Council of India sought to prevent the enrollment which was in the domain of the State Bar Council. The Honourable Apex Court was also dealing with Section 49 (l)(ag) and (ah) and not the power exercised by the Bar Council of India in the present case under Section 49(1 )(af) and (d) read with Section 7(1) of the Act.
44. Similarly, in V.Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India, and another reported in (1999)3 SCC 176, the Honourable Apex Court was dealing with a case wherein the Bar Council of India sought to impose the condition that after the completion of the law course, a candidate will have to undergo an apprenticeship before enrollment. The Honourable Apex Court by following the said ratio, has held that such condition cannot be imposed by the Bar Council of India and it does not have the power or authority under Section 49(1) and Section 7(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
45. In fact, the Honourable Apex Court has specified in the said judgment that Section 49(1) (af) of the Act deals with the minimum qualification required for admission to a course in law in a recognized university and the said provision does not have anything to do with the rules impugned therein. The Honourable Apex Court was also considering the scope of Sections 7(1 )(h), 24(3)(d) and 49(l)(ag) and (ah) and not Section 49(1 )(af) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the above said two judgments rendered by the Honourable Apex Court do not help the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, we answer Points (i) (ii) and (Hi) in favour of the respondents that the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, are in accordance with the power conferred under Sections 7(1) (h) and (i), 24(1 )(c)(iii) and (iii a), 49(1 )(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and explanation to Rules 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, is in accordance with Section 49 of the Act and not contrary to Section 24( 1) of the Advocates Act and hence, they are constitutional and valid in law."
In Visveswaraiah Technological University and another vs. Krishnendu Haider and others, (2011) 4 SCC 606, the apex court has crystallized the law as laid down in several decisions with regard to eligibility criteria for admission to institutions of higher education thus :
"14. The respondents (colleges and the students) submitted that in that particular year (2007-2008) nearly 5000 engineering seats remained unfilled. They contended that whenever a large number of seats remained unfilled, on account of non-availability of adequate candidates, paras 41(v) and (vi) of Adhiyaman would come into play and automatically the lower minimum standards prescribed by AICTE alone would apply. This contention is liable to be rejected in view of the principles laid down in the Constitution Bench decision in Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) and die decision of the larger bench in S.V.Bratheep which explains the observations in Adhiyaman in the correct perspective. We summarise below the position, emerging from these decisions:
(i) While prescribing the eligibility criteria for admission to institutions of higher education, the State/University cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the central body/AICTE. The term :"adversely affect the standards" refers to lowering of the norms laid down by the central body/AICTE. Prescribing higher standards for admission by laying down qualifications in addition to or higher than those prescribed by AICTE , consistent with the object of promoting higher standards and excellence in higher education, will not be considered as adversely affecting the standards laid down by the central body/AICTE.
(ii) The observation in para 41 (vi) of Adhiyaman to the effect that where seats remain unfilled, the State authorities cannot deny admission to any student satisfying the minimum standards laid down by AICTE, even though he is not qualified according to its standards, is not good law.''
X X X X
"¦..In fact the State/University, may, in spite of vacancies, continue with the higher eligibility criteria to maintain better standards of higher education in the State or in the colleges affiliated to the University. Determination of such standards, being part of the academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or "adversely affect" the standards, if any, fixed by the central body under a Central enactment. "
In University Grants Commission and another vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), (2013) 10 SCC 519, the Supreme Court has sounded the following words of caution :
"We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v.v. C.D.Govinda Rao, Tariz Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Rajhir Singh Dalai vs. Chaudhary Devi Lai University, has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the pr oblem ihey face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any " qualifying criteria ", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research."
In the light of the above, the first point for consideration may be answered with reference to the relevant provisions of the 1961 Act, The BCI Rules and the authoritative opinions expressed by the Courts, cited above.
The functions of the BCI are prescribed under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, which includes its duty to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. Another function of the BCI is to recognize Universities, whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities, or direct the State Bar Councils to visit and inspect the said Universities, in its stead.
Under Section 24 of the 1961 Act, a person can be enrolled as an advocate only if he satisfies the conditions prescribed there under, one of which is that the law degree obtained by that person is from any University recognized by the BCI.
Under Section 49 of the 1961 Act, a general power is conferred on the BCI to make rules for discharging its functions, inter alia, in the matter of the minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of degree in law in any recognized University. As also the standards of legal education to be observed by universities in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose.
The above provisions would leave no room for doubt as to the power and authority cf the ECI to make rules governing minimum eligibility criteria, be it with regard to educational qualification, minimum marks obtained in the qualifying exam or other incidental qualifications. It may even prescribe the same to be incorporated in the relevant Rules or Regulations, if any, framed by the Universities in that regard.
The 'Explanation' appended to Rule 5 of the 2008 Rules is to the following effect:
" Explanation - the applicants who have obtained 10 +2 or graduation/ post-graduation through Open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law courses "
Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules prescribes the minimum percentage of marks to be secured in the qualifying examination to secure admission to the LL.B. Degree Course.
The above requirements, apart from other qualifications have been incorporated in the Regulations framed by the KSLU. On a overall view it cannot be said that there is any violation of any statutory provision by virtue of the above prescription made by the BCI. It is also brought on record that the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, under Part IV of the BCI Rules are made by the BCI in consultation with the Universities and the State Bar Councils. (Vide Resolution No.l 10/2008, dated 14th September, 2008). Hence it would not be for this Court to sit in appeal over the consensual decision of the BCI and others, which was the basis for the 2008 Rules, in the absence of any apparent arbitrariness or illegality. The petitioners are not enabled to draw any sustenance from the decision in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and Others vs. Bar Council of India and another, (1995)1 SCC 732, as it was rendered in a wholly different context.
In so far as the contention as to the Regulations Governing the Three Year LL. B. Degree, framed under the KSLU Act being invalid and inapplicable, is concerned, even if the same are eschewed, the resultant position would be that the case of the petitioners would still have to be viewed with reference to the 2008 Rules and hence the alleged infirmity if any, pales into insignificance. This is especially so if the Regulations framed, are deemed to have been rnaae under Section 87 of the KSLU Act. In that, an argument is canvassed that the first Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction to frame the Regulations in exercise of power under the enabling provision conferring Transitory powers under Section 86 of the Act. Even if it is to be accepted that Section 86 does not specifically confer the power, on tne first Vice Chancellor, to make Regulations , unlike the specific reference to his power of making Statutes, the power to modify the prevailing Regulations can be traced to Section 87, which makes it incumbent on the first Vice Chancellor to bring the pre-existing Regulations made under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 in line with the requirements under the 2008 Rules, as a temporary measure. The power to make suck Regulations is no doubt in the exclusive domain of the Academic Council, which has been constituted later.
As regards the several petitioners who have been admitted to the Course and some of them having completed the Course and having been declared as passtd and even having received their Degree Certificates, are concerned, it was possible for them to pursue the Course only by virtue of conditional interim orders of this Court. Hence any advantage gained would not enure to the benefit of any of such petitioners. This is very unfortunate . Their misery could have been avoided if interim orders had been refused in the first instance. There is no scope for the petitioners to plead equity or estoppel, at this juncture The University would normally be required to cancel and recall any such certificates issued and to debar those students who may be pursuing the Course even as on date, on these petitions being dismissed.
Though the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another, (2009)1 SCC 610, was brought to the attention of this court, the same would not advance the case of the petitioners at all. The following passages from the judgment would indicate that there was no similarity in the circumstances, vis-a-vis the petitioners, on the basis of which any relief was extended :
"18. However, on the peculiar facts of the case, the first respondent is entitled to relief. The first respondent was admitted through a Common Entrance Test process during 2004-2005. He was permitted to take the first semester examinations by the university. He is not guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation of facts. Apparently, there was some confusion in the appellant university itself as to whether the distance education course attended by the first respondent was the same as correspondence course which was recognized.
19. The first respondent was informed that he was not eligible, only after he took the first semester examination. He has however also been permitted to continue the course and has completed the course in 2007. He has succeeded before the High Court. Now after four years, if it is to be held that he is not entitled to admission, four years of his career will be irretrievably lost. In the circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and recognized by the appellant university
20. This Court in Shi Krishnan vs. The Kurukshetra University, (AIR 1976 SC 376), has observed that before issuing the admission card to a student to appear in Part-I Law Examination, n Vms the duty of the university authorities to scrutinize the'-papers; and equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the university to see that it complied with all requirements; and if they did not take care to scrutinize the papers, the candidature for the examinations cannot be cancelled subsequently on the ground of non- fulfilment of requirements.
21. In Sanatan Cauda v.v. Berhampur University (AIR 1990 SC 1075), this Court held where the candidate was admitted to the Law course by Law College and University also permitted him to appear for Pre- Law and Intermediate Law examinations, the college and the university were estopped from withholding his result on the ground that he was ineligible to take admission in Law course.
As seen from the facts of that case and the case law that is referred to, it cannot be said that the petitioners are similarly placed. The petitioners who have obtained degree certificates would not be enabled to enroll themselves as advocates, even if they have obtained such certificates, as their very admission to the Course was not permissible. But it cannot be ignored that the several petitioners who are before this court have successfully completed the Course. It is a gallant and a noble effort, but sadly fruitless. But at the same time, it is seen that all the petitioners were not pursuing a career in law. The degree conferred on them though would not enable them to enroll as advocates, but would possibly advance their career prospects in other ways. Therefore it would serve the ends of justice and would not in any manner lower the standards ,which the BCI endeavours to maintain in the legal profession, if the petitioners are conferred the LL.B Degree on successful completion of the Course, albeit with a total bar against enrollment. (This being indicated prominently in the Degree Certificate.) This extra- ordinary measure however is to be extended only to the petitioners. This exercise should not again be held against the University or the respective colleges - in subjecting the said entities to any punitive or retaliatory action by the BCI. It is the above direction which would be given effect to and the consequent action, if any, on their part is not on the volition of either the University, or the respective college.
Accordingly, the petitioners who have successfully completed the course shall be awarded the Degree Certificate by the University, in terms as aforesaid. In so far as those petitioners who are pursuing tht Course presently shall be allowed to complete the Course and shall also be awarded Degree Certificates similarly as aforesaid.
Subject to the above direction the writ petitions are dismissed.