Karnataka High Court
Ritvik Balanagraj B vs Bar Council Of India on 8 February, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 131, 2021 (2) AKR 593
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.14389 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)
A/W
WRIT PETITION NOs.2197 OF 2021,
1850/2021 (EDN-RES)
IN W.P.NO.14389/2020
BETWEEN
RITVIK BALANAGRAJ B
S/O S BALASUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT NO 27/1, 1ST MAIN
4TH MAIN 4TH CROSS,
G R B NIVAS, SUDHAMANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560025
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI A S PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI ARNAV A BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE
SMT GEETHA PRABHU & MISS KAREN D'SOUZA,
PARTY-IN-PERSON ARE RETURNED WITH OFFICE OBJECTIONS)
AND
1. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
NEAR BAL BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI 110002
2
2. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
KARNATAKA 560025
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
M S BUILDING,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SMT PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
CIRCULAR DATED 09.11.2020 AND IMPUGNED PRESS RELEASE
DATED 01.11.2020, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED HEREWITH
AS ANNEXURE-A AND B, AS BEING ILLEGAL AND VOID TO THE
EXTENT THAT THEY DEVIATE FROM THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY
THE UNIVERSITIES GRANTS COMMISSION AND IMPOSE AN
EXAMINATION ON INTERMEDIATE SEMESTER LAW STUDENTS OF
ALL LAW UNIVERSITIES ACROSS INDIA, INCLUDING THE LAW
UNIVERSITIES THAT ARE AFFILIATED WITH KSLU, FOR THE EVEN
SEMESTER OF 2019-2020 ACADEMIC YEAR AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.2197/2021
BETWEEN
1. KUBRA NOOR
D/O. NOORULLA ABDUL RAHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
NO.292, 16TH CROSS,
3
2ND BLOCK, RT NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560032
2. ADITHYA C SHUKAPURI
S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
NO.315, ANANTHESHUKAPURI,
7TH MAIN, VYALIKAVAL,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE 560003
3. SHOBITH U
S/O. S. UMESH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
NO.91/1, DASSAPPA GARDEN,
GOVINDAPPA BUILDING,
RT NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560032
4. NIHAAL SANA
S/O. SANAULLA P F,
AGED 20 YEARS,
NO.18/1-1, 2ND 'C' CROSS,
VASANTHAPPA BLOCK,
GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560032
5. SUDEESH S KESARKAR
S/O. SUBHASH M KESARKAR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
NO.1307, 2ND CROSS,
BRINDAVANA LAYOUT,
KAVALBYRASANDRA,
RT NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560032
6. JAVERIA FIDA S
D/O. SYED MUJAHID PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
4
NO.37/2,10TH CROSS,
LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK,
CBI MAIN ROAD,
GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560032
7. SHIMAZ
D/O. ASLAM PASH,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
16TH CROSS,
GANGOTHRI NAGAR,
TUMKUR 572102
8. AKSHATHA H
D/O. HONNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
HGH LAYOUT,
GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560032
9. SAKET TAMBE
S/O. SRIKANT TAMBE,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
MSR NAGAR, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
10 . ESHWAR P S
S/O. SRIDHAR P V,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
MSR NAGAR,
BANGALORE 540056
11 . SHAMBAVI SINGH
D/O. PRABHAKAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
4TH 'A' CROSS,
MATHIKERE EXTENSION,
BANGALORE 560054
5
12 . NAVANEETH V JOSHI
S/O. VITHAL R JOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
8TH 'A' CROSS, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
13 . ADITYA SHETTI
S/O. SHIVAMUDRAPPA SHETTI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
MSR NAGAR, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
14 . GANESH S SARGANACHARI
S/O. SHIVAKUMAR SARGANACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
14TH MAIN ROAD, BRINDHAVAN,
BANGALORE 560054
15 . ANUPRIYA CHAUHAN
D/O. MANOJ KUMAR CHAUHAN,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
H. NO. 32, SANTRUPTHI,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560054
16 . SAITH C J
S/O. VENKATESH C J,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
NO.16, 4TH CROSS,
SRIRAMPURAM,
BANGALORE 21
17 . SAI TANISHA K
S/O. DR. K E KUMARASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
11TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560080
6
18 . AKRITI JHUNJHUNWALA
D/O. MANOJ JHUNJHUWALA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
BJ TEMPLE STREET,
1B, 301, BANGALORE 560094
19 . AJEET MISHRA
S/O. PRADEEP MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME,
MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
20 . ANSHUMAN SINGH
S/O. PRABHAKAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
21 . CH. GOWTHAM SARAN
S/O. CH SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
22 . NIRANJAN KRISHNA
S/O. SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
23 . HRITHICK RAJ K P
S/O. PARAMESWARAN,
AGED 20 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
7
24 . RISHAB GOSWAMI
S/O. KAUSHIK GOSWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
25 . RISHANK P SIRAMATH
S/O. PRASAD R SIRAMATH,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
#14TH CROSS,
MC LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE 540040
26 . O. FATEEN TAARIQ
S/O. OMAR FAROOK,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
27 . MANISH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
S/O. BHUPENDRA SHRIVASTAVA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
28 . S. SHANKAR CHARITHRAN
S/O. M SELVAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
29 . SRIVATSAN S
S/O. SURESH GOPATHY,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
8
30 . R. PRAVIN PRINATH
S/O. K RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME, MATHIKERE,
MSR NAGAR
BANGALORE 540056
31 . ANUKRITI RAWAT
D/O. ASHOK RAWAT,
AGED 19 YEARS
VENKETTAMMA GOWREMMA,
GIRLS HOME, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
32 . CHIRAG G S
S/O. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
TRIVENI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE 540056
33 . LIKITHE M B
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
MSR BOYS HOME,
MSR NAGAR,MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
34 . JASWIN JOY
S/O. JOY M,
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,
MSR NAGAR, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE 540056
35 . HARSHITHA N
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
SADASHIVNAGAR,
BANGALORE 560080
9
36 . SHERWIN DSOUZA
S/O. A ALWYN D'SOUZA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
EMMANUEL STREET, KAMMASANDRA,
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BANGALORE 560100
37 . ANUP DEVARAJA
S/O. B S DEVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
NEW THIPPASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE 560075
38 . YUSRA AZAM
D/O SHAIK AZAM
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
NO.458, 8TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560034
39 . VIMALA MARY A
D/O. MARY JOSEPHINE,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
5TH CROSS, LAWRENCE LAYOUT,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BANGALORE 560045
40 . GNYANESH B S
S/O. B SIDDABASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
60 FEET ROAD,
MEI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE 560073
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
10
MS BUILDING,
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001,
REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY (KSLU)
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
KARNATAKA 580025,
REP BY THE REGISTRAR
3. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA (BCI)
21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
NEAR BAL BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI 110002,
REP BY THE CHAIRMAN
4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC)
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI, DELHI 110002.
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1
SRI GANAPATHI S BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI H R SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR
DATED 09.11.2020 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.1850/2021
BETWEEN
1. HRUTHIK R
S/O RAVI K,
11
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
CHOKKANAHALLI,
YENIGADALE POST,
CHINTHAMANI THALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA PIN 563125
2. MOHAMMED KALEEM
S/O NISAR AHMAED,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
#2363, KUSHAL NAGAR,
K G HALLI, HANIFIA MOSQUE ROAD,
4TH CROSS,
BANGALORE 560045
3. AMARTYA CHOUBEY
S/O KALYANI KRIPA CHOUBEY,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
NIVEDANSADAN,
ROAD NO 2, SHASTRI NAGAR,
CHANDNI CHOWK, NANKE ROAD,
RANCHI, JHARKHAND 834008
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
NEAR BAL BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI 110002
2. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
KARNATAKA 560025
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
12
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
M S BUILDING,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001
4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI, DELHI- 110002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SMT PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R3
SRI H R SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ANNEXURE-A CIRCULAR DTD 9.11.2020 AND ANNEXURE-P
CIRCULAR DTD.13.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS IT IMPOSES
EXAMINATION THROUGH OFFLINE PHYSICAL MODE ON
INTERMEDIATE SEMESTER LAW STUDENTS STUDYING IN THE
COLLEGES AFFILIATED TO THE R-2 KSLU FOR THE EVEN
SEMESTER THAT FELL IN THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-20 AND THE
ODD SEMESTER THAT FEE IN THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-21 AND
ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 02/04/05.02.2021 AND COMING ON FOR
13
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in W.P.No.14389/2020 is a Law student of the Five Years Course. He has filed this writ petition challenging the Circular dated 09.11.2020 issued by the respondent-Karnataka State Law University (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent- University' for short) and the Press release dated 01.11.2020 issued by the respondent-Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'Bar Council' for short). In short, the grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the Bar Council had earlier issued guidelines and instructions to all the Law Universities in the country, in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, directing that all the students, except the final year students, will be promoted on the basis of performance in previous semesters and marks obtained in the internal examination of the current year. However, by issuing the impugned Press release, the Bar Council directing all the Law Universities to conduct physical examination with the NOC of the State Government and State Disaster Management Authority, by giving the option to such 14 law students who are unable and/or unwilling to appear in such physical exams till the Covid-19 pandemic is averted, and having appeared therein, who are unable to clear such exam, to appear in the re-appear exam after physical reopening of the University/Centres of Legal Education. It was also clarified that since the pandemic still persists with no early respite, the Council resolved that examination for all intermediary along with final year law students/classes too may be held online, if the Universities/Law Colleges are able to hold it online, and if adequate infrastructure and other facilities for students are available. Following the Press release of the Bar Council, the respondent-University issued the impugned Circular clarifying that there was a misunderstanding and confusion among the intermediate semester law students that there will be no examinations. Hence, the Circular was issued to clarify that the students studying in intermediate semesters have been promoted to take admission for next semester. However, the promotion of students to the next semester is only for the sake of admission. It was further directed that all the intermediate semester students who have been promoted to the next class are 15 required to write intermediate examinations compulsorily as per the Bar Council Press release.
2. The main grievance sought to be put forth by petitioner is that the impugned Press release and Circular are not only contrary to the earlier guidelines issued, but are also contrary to the guidelines issued by the Universities Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC' for short). It is an admitted fact that the petitioner along with another student had filed a writ petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. However, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and file another writ petition in their individual capacity. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, two more students filed Interlocutory applications to implead themselves as party petitioners. However, they were directed to file separate writ petitions to raise a challenge to the action of the Bar Council and the University.
3. After the arguments were heard and the matter was reserved for orders, two more writ petitions in W.P.No.2197/2021 and W.P.No.1850/2021 came up for Preliminary Hearing. Since these writ petitions also raised similar challenge to the Press 16 release and the impugned Circular, this common order is passed with respect to all the writ petitions, after hearing the learned Counsels for the petitioners and the respondents.
4. Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.14389/2020 submits that the guidelines issued by the UGC is binding on all the Universities in the country. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the guidelines issued by the UGC, more so, with respect to the final year students of all the Universities and Colleges across the country, for whom, terminal semester/final year examinations were directed to be conducted by 30.09.2020. The final year students had challenged the guidelines of the UGC inter alia on the ground of discrimination between the students of final year and the other year students. In the earlier Circulars of the UGC, option was given with regard to intermediate students for their promotion on the basis of internal assessment and performance in the previous semesters. It is submitted that the Apex Court has held that the differentiation made by revised guidelines to hold examinations for the final year students and not for the other students, had a rational basis and there is an intelligible differentia between the students of final year 17 and other students. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore submits that when the UGC had issued guidelines directing promotion of the students of the Universities from one year to another year making provision for awarding of 50% marks, based on the internal assessments and 50% marks on the basis of the previous examinations, if any, and the same being upheld by the Apex Court, the respondent-University and the Bar Council cannot compel the students other than final year students to write the examinations.
5. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the Bar Council could not have issued notifications/Press release, contrary to the guidelines issued by the UGC. It was in fact pointed out from the communication dated 27.05.2020 made by the Bar Council to all the Vice-Chancellors and Registrars of the Law Universities in the country that the Bar Council had passed the resolutions and guidelines in the light of the detailed guidelines issued by the UGC on 27.04.2020.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri Ganapathi N.Bhat, appearing for the respondent-University submits that in terms of Regulation-15 of the Regulations Governing The Five Year B.A. LL.B., Integrated Degree Course In Law (hereinafter referred to as 18 'Regulations of the University' for short), which is made by virtue of the powers conferred on the Vice-Chancellor of the University under Section 86 read with Section 34(2)(ii) and Section 49 of the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009, no student could be promoted to the next academic year of the programme unless the student has completed all the courses prescribed for the two semesters in an academic year by securing not less than forty percent of the marks in each of the courses. It is submitted that certain relaxation is granted under the proviso to Regulation-15(a) of the Regulations of the University. The learned Counsel would submit that if no examinations are held for the intermediate students, then in terms of the Standard test for recognition, as provided in the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 2008' for short) prescribed by the Bar Council, the Degree Certificate issued by the University may not be recognized. The learned Counsel points out to Rules 8, 10 and 12 of the Rules 2008.
7. Learned Counsel for the Bar Council supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-University. The learned Counsel would submit that unless and until the end 19 semester tests are held in terms of Rule 12 of Rules 2008, and it is shown in the marks card that the student has passed in all the courses of the semester, a certificate cannot be awarded to the student. Learned Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to Schedule-II and Schedule-III of the Rules 2008 to contend that the schedules would provide the academic standards and courses to be studied. It is submitted that the respondent-University has designed its academic programme accordingly, prescribing the compulsory subjects in Legal Education as per Part-II, compulsory Clinical courses as per Part-II(B) and Part-II(C) of Schedule-II. The learned Counsel therefore reiterates the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-University that unless a student completes all the courses in the semester, he or she cannot be promoted to the next academic year.
8. Both the learned Counsels for the respondent-University and Bar Council would submit that the guidelines dated 27.05.2020 was issued by the Bar Council in view of the then prevailing Covid-19 pandemic. It is submitted that it was made clear in the guidelines dated 27.05.2020 that the intermediate semester students will be promoted on the basis of performance of previous 20 year's and marks obtained in the internal examination of the current year but it was also made clear that the Universities were required to conduct the end semester examination within a month of reopening of the colleges. Thereafter, the Press Release dated 01.11.2020 was required to be issued by the Bar Council in view of a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Samarth Nayar and Others Vs. Controller of Examinations, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Others in W.P.(C) No.8307/2020, in the order dated 21.10.2020. The Delhi High Court had held that in view of the stand taken by the respondent- University (New Delhi) clarifying the position that if the students do not wish to appear in the examination commencing on 02.11.2020, they are free to appear in the re-examination which will be held subsequently. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Praneeth K. and Others Vs. University Grants Commission and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 688 had given a right to the respective State Disaster Management Authority in view of the pandemic to make requests to the concerned authorities for postponing the physical examination if they deem fit, and such request will have to be heard by the authority concerned. Taking 21 these two orders/decisions into consideration, the Bar Council modified the earlier Circulars/Press Release to provide an option to the Universities to conduct physical examination with the NOC of the State Government and State Disaster Management Authority by giving the option to such law students who are unable and/or unwilling to appear in such physical examinations till the Covid-19 pandemic is averted, and to appear in the re-appear examination after physical reopening of the Universities. It was again made clear that the examination for all the intermediary students along with the final year students could be held online.
9. The learned Counsels for the respondents would therefore submit that neither the Bar Council nor the respondent-University had done away with the end semester examination. Since the learned Counsels for the petitioners had argued that the guidelines issued by the UGC would prevail over all the Universities in the country, the learned Counsels for the respondents submit that the power and authority of the Bar Council of India in the matter of providing Standards of Legal Education and recognition of Degree in Law for the purpose of enrolment as advocate has been well recognized and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 22 Bar Council of India Vs. Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law and Others AIR 2007 SC 1342.
10. The learned Counsels for the petitioners in the writ petitions which were subsequently filed, submits that the contention of the learned Counsels for the respondents that if there is no examination conducted and the marks card does not reflect the marks obtained in the examination, then in terms of the Bar Council Rules, such of the students cannot be enrolled as Advocates, may not be correct. It is submitted that in all the guidelines issued by the Bar Council, it is seen that the guidelines issued by the UGC have been followed. The guidelines of the UGC clearly provides that in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and disruption of the entire academic year 2019-2020, there is a need to provide flexibility to the Universities to implement the guidelines in the best interest of the students. The guidelines provided that in case the pandemic situation does not normalize, the grading can be on the basis of internal evaluation and past performance of the student. Various State Governments including State of Maharashtra, State of West Bengal, NCT of Delhi and other States have expressed their inability 23 to organize the examination in the wake of increase in covid cases. Following the said guidelines, Bar Council also issued guidelines to all the Law Universities making provision for promotion of the intermediate semester students on the basis of performance of previous year's and marks obtained in internal examination of the current year. This would mean that in terms of the UGC guidelines, 50% of the marks obtained in the internal tests of the current year and 50% of the marks obtained in the previous year shall be considered as the marks obtained by the student and the same will be reflected in the marks card. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent-University or the Bar Council to contend that the marks will not be reflected in the marks card.
11. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers.
12. Having gone through the Regulations of the respondent- University and Rules 2008 of the Bar Council, this Court does not find the term 'intermediate semester' or 'intermediate semester students'. It is obvious that the terminology has been picked up from the UGC guidelines which were issued in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, during the course of the arguments, the 24 confusion surrounding the said terminology have been cleared and it is understood that the words 'intermediate semester' would refer to the courses starting from the First Year to the Fourth year of 5 year Law Courses. The words 'Final/Terminal semester students' would mean the fifth year students. The words 'intermediate semester students' would refer to students of the First year to Fourth year.
13. These writ petitions are filed by the intermediate semester students viz., Second year to Fourth year students. Their specific contention is that the Even semesters - 4th, 6th and 8th semesters commenced during the first week of February 2020. A total lockdown was declared by the State Government on 24th March 2020 and all the schools and colleges in the State of Karnataka were closed down from that date. On 10.04.2020, the respondent-University issued a Circular directing its affiliated Law Colleges to complete the remaining syllabus through online classes. On 27.04.2020 the UGC issued the 'Guidelines on Examinations and Academic Calendar for the Universities In View of Covid-19 Pandemic and Subsequent Lockdown' advising all the Universities in the country that in case the pandemic situation does not normalize, 25 the grading can be on the basis of internal evaluation and past performance of the students. The grading of the students could be a composite of 50% marks on the basis of internal evaluation and the remaining 50% marks could be awarded on the basis of performance of previous semester. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that though the Bar Council issued guidelines to its affiliated Universities, based on the guidelines issued by the UGC, however, holding of the end semester examinations is made compulsory in terms of the impugned Press release dated 01.11.2020 and clarified in the impugned notification dated 09.11.2020.
14. The petitioners have contended that for various reasons the online classes, though held, they have not been as effective as the regular classes. Many of the students who had gone back to their native places in view of the lockdown and travel restrictions, were unable to attend to the online classes. Their prayer is therefore not to hold any examinations and to give the benefit flowing from the UGC guidelines and the Government of Karnataka notification dated 10.07.2020 to promote the intermediate semester Law students to the next academic year, by awarding 26 50% marks based on internal evaluation and the remaining 50% on the basis of performance in previous semester.
15. Insofar as the powers and functions of the Bar Council of India and its authority in the matter of making Rules on Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degree in Law is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bar Council of India Vs. Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law (supra) has held that the establishment of the Bar Council of India is under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, and the Advocates Act falls under Entries 77 and 78 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The guidelines issued by the UGC under the extraordinary circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic has been rightly adopted by the Bar Council, while issuing its notifications/guidelines to all the Law Universities. However, the benefit flowing from the UGC guidelines to the students other than the final year students, has not been given to the intermediate semester Law students and therefore their grievance is brought before this Court.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the grievance of the final year students in different courses in the 27 light of the UGC guidelines dated 29.04.2020. The UGC had constituted an Expert Committee to deliberate and make recommendations regarding conduct of examination and academic calendar. The Expert Committee submitted its report on basis of which UGC issued guidelines on 29.04.2020, in which it was proposed that examinations of the final year University students should be held by 31.07.2020. The final year University students had contended before the Apex Court that various other Examination Boards like CBSE, ICSE, ISC have cancelled their Xth/ XIIth Board Examinations due to Covid-19 pandemic and has declared the result on the basis of past performance/internal assessment. It was contended that on the one hand, the UGC had exempted the students of intermediate years/semester from appearing in the examinations due to Covid-19 outbreak and on the other hand, has forced the final year students to appear in the examinations, which is discriminatory and arbitrary. A specific challenge was raised to the guidelines that the guidelines are beyond the domain of UGC and does not relate to 'co-ordination and determination of standards in institution of higher education'. Having noticed that the UGC Act has been enacted in reference to 28 Entry-66 List-I and the preamble of the Act stated that the Act is enacted to make provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission. A contention was put forth on behalf of the petitioners that the Constitution Bench, in the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353, had held that the power and competence of the UGC is excluded in the matter of conducting of examination, etc., and admission of students to such Institutions or prescribing the fee in the institutions of higher education etc. Therefore, it was contended that since the UGC did not have the competence in the matter of conducting of examinations, such a direction given in the guidelines cannot be sustained.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold that the expression 'not include conducting of examination etc.,' would not come in the way of the UGC issuing the guidelines since it is not the UGC which conducts the examinations. The examinations are to be conducted by the respective Universities only. It was further held that the observations of the Constitution Bench in paragraph-101 as relied by the learned Senior Counsel, cannot be treated to be laying 29 down any proposition that UGC has no competence to lay down any standards with regard to examination. Consequently, the contention that it is beyond the domain of the UGC to issue such guidelines was negatived.
18. The second issue that was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the Revised Guidelines are non statutory and advisory only and whether the guidelines are contrary to earlier guidelines dated 29.04.2020. While dealing with the said issues, it was noticed that at the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs issued various orders and had taken measures to prevent its spread across the country including lockdown where several activities were prohibited due to the situation as developed from the last week of March, 2020. Neither any teaching could be done in the Colleges/Universities nor any examination could be held for months together. Since the examinations could not be held in the month of March to June, 2020, by which period usually the examinations of all Universities are completed and results are declared, UGC came up with guidelines on examinations and academic calendar for the Universities. The Apex Court noticed that in the introduction of the 30 guidelines, the UGC had taken note of the fact that the teaching- learning process and research activities have been badly disrupted due to Covid-19 pandemic. The schedule of terminal semester examinations has also got disturbed. In such scenario, the UGC felt that it is the joint responsibility of all the stakeholders to manage multiple key issues relating to academic activities in the institutions. While it is crucial to follow measures taken by the Government to contain the spread of COVID-19, it was also felt that it is important to continue the educational process making effective use of technology and other available options. The UGC therefore opined that at these difficult times it is required to be optimistic and engage the students in effective and constructive ways. Therefore, having engaged with this issue, the UGC contemplated measures to face the challenge of safeguarding the interests of the academic fraternity in general and students in particular. Confronted with vital issues of examinations and academic calendar, UGC constituted an Expert Committee to deliberate on these issues and make recommendations to address them. Based on the report submitted by the Expert Committee, the guidelines dated 29.04.2020 was issued.
31
19. It was noticed that while leaving it to the Universities to adopt efficient and innovative modes of conducting examinations as suggested in the guidelines, most importantly, in respect of the Intermediate Semester/Year students, the guidelines provided that the Universities may conduct examinations, after making a comprehensive assessment of their level of preparedness, residential status of the students, status of COVID-19 pandemic spread in different region/state and other factors. It was specifically stated that in case the situation does not appear to be normal in view of Covid-19, in order to maintain 'social distancing', safety and health of the students, grading of the students could be composite of 50% marks on the basis of the pattern of internal evaluation adopted by the universities and the remaining 50% marks can be awarded on the basis of performance in the previous semester only (if available). The internal evaluation can be continuous evaluation, prelims, mid-semester, internal assessments or whatever name is given for student progression. It was also provided that in case of the first year students, where previous marks are not available, 100% evaluation may be done on the basis of internal evaluation. However, if the student wishes to improve 32 the grades, he/she may appear in special exams for such subjects during next semester.
20. While dealing with issue No.3, the Apex Court considered the argument of the final year students that the UGC guidelines discriminate between the students of final year and the other intermediate semester students. The guidelines were attacked on the ground that they were unreasonable and arbitrary. It was also argued that in the earlier guidelines all the students were considered similarly, but in the guidelines dated 06.07.2020 examination for the final year students was made necessary.
21. While answering the issue, it was held that the Final year/terminal semesters examinations are important because the learning process is a dynamic interaction where the only way to figure out what students know is to seek evidence of their knowledge and to evaluate it. Performance in examination, especially Final year/terminal semester examination are reflection of competence of the students. Terminal semester/final year examination also provides an opportunity to the students to improve upon their overall score/marks which are very crucial for academic excellence and opportunities of employment. It was held 33 that Final year/terminal semester examination of Under-Graduate or Post-Graduate is an opportunity for students to show their optimum calibre which pave their future career both in academics and employment. The Apex Court went on to hold that it does not find any unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the revised guidelines of UGC dated 06.07.2020. Finally it was held that the differentiation made by revised guidelines to hold Final year/Terminal semester examination has a rational basis and there is an intelligible differentia between the student of Final year/Terminal semester and other students. The contention that there is an hostile discrimination between the students of Final year/Terminal semester and other students was rejected.
22. When we examine the contentions raised in these writ petitions, this Court finds that much of it stands covered in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. As noticed earlier, the petitioners before the Court are intermediate semester students and not the final year students. The relaxation given to the intermediate semester students in the UGC Guidelines directing the Universities that if the situation does not appear to be normal, the grading of the students could be made composite of 50% marks on 34 the basis of the internal assessments and the remaining 50% on the basis of performance in previous semesters, has been upheld by the Apex Court.
23. Most importantly, the Apex Court has noticed that the UGC constituted an Expert Committee to look into the issue. The Expert Committee has taken into consideration various aspects from various angles and all stakeholders into consideration. On the basis of the report submitted, the UGC proceeded to issue guidelines. It is relevant to notice that in all the guidelines issued by the Bar Council, reference has been made to the UGC guidelines. No doubt, the Bar Council is vested with the power to issue guidelines which would prevail upon all Law Universities, but the Bar Council has not appointed any Expert Committee to go into the issue which is specific to the Law Universities and law students. There is nothing on record which would convince this Court that there was any material before the Bar Council to deviate from the guidelines issued by the UGC. The importance of holding examination for the final year/terminal semester students when compared to the other intermediate semester students has received full attention at the hands of the Apex Court as noticed above. 35
24. One another important aspect which was deliberated upon during the course of the argument was the hardship and pressure cast on the intermediate semester students in having to write examinations in 12 courses at a stretch. Each year being divided into two semesters, at the end of the Odd semester, an examination would be held, where the student would be taking up examinations in six courses. Similarly, with regard to the next semester viz., the Even semester, examinations would be conducted in six other courses. Unmindful of the difficulties that could be caused to the intermediate semester students, the impugned Press release and the notification dated 09.11.2020 requires the students to write examinations of both the semesters together.
25. When deliberations happened on this issue, the respondent-University has come up with a fresh Time Table along with a notification dated 29.01.2021. On going through the fresh Time Table, it is evident that the respondent-University has not kept the interest of the students in mind. With regard to the third year LL.B. students, the new timetable has scheduled examinations starting from 15.02.2021 and ending on 26.02.2021, alternating 36 the Odd and Even semester papers everyday. This clearly shows that there is total non-application of mind. Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary decisions, not only by this Court, but also the respondent-University.
26. Having regard to the grievance raised by the intermediate semester law students and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Praneeth K. (supra) and in the light of the finding of this Court that the decisions of the Bar Council and the respondent- University not being arrived at on the basis of any expert opinion unlike the guidelines issued by the UGC, this Court is of the considered opinion that if not for cancellation of all the examinations, atleast the Even Semester examinations of the 1st to 4th year intermediate semester law students requires cancellation.
27. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is a rational basis for the decision of the UGC in advising the Universities that in case the situation does not appear to be normal in view of Covid- 19, in order to maintain social distancing, safety and health of the students, grading of the students on the basis of the internal assessments and taking 50% of the marks awarded in the previous 37 semester examination, grades can be awarded to the students of 1st year to 4th year with respect to the Even Semester.
28. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The impugned Press Release dated 01.11.2020 issued by the Bar Council of India and the Circular dated 09.11.2020 issued by the Karnataka State Law University are quashed and set aside insofar as the intermediate semester examinations are concerned, with respect to the 1st to 4th year Five Year Law students.
ii) The Time Table announced by the Karnataka State Law University along with the notifications dated 13.01.2021 and dated 29.01.2021 insofar as the 1st year to 4th year students are concerned are also hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The Karnataka State Law University may
announce a fresh Time Table with respect to the
1st year to 4th year students of the Five Year Law
course, scheduling examinations of the Odd
Semesters only.
38
iv) Insofar as the Even Semester examinations are
concerned, the same shall be assessed on the
basis of the internal assessments of the students to an extent of 50% and the remaining 50% of the marks on the basis of performance in the previous semester only (if available). The marks card shall also be issued in the above terms, with respect to the Even Semesters.
It is ordered accordingly.
In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, pending Interlocutory Applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same stand disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE JT/-