Karnataka High Court
Pruthvi Educational Trust, Bangalore vs Bar Concil Of India, New Delhi And Others on 28 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR2001KANT24, ILR2000KAR3753, 2001(2)KARLJ388, AIR 2001 KARNATAKA 24, (2000) ILR (KANT) 3753 (2001) 2 KANT LJ 388, (2001) 2 KANT LJ 388
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan, R. Gururajan
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhan, Actg. C.J.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 25129 of 1998 (Pruthvi Educational Trust, Bangalore v Bar Council of India, New Delhi and Others2), thereby upholding the order passed by the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent 1') declining to grant permission to the appellant to start a new law college which it had proposed to establish, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as under:
Appellant is the registered Trust which has been founded with the object to provide, establish and to maintain Educational Institutions and also to undertake charitable, religious, social, cultural and benevolent activities. Respondent 1 had issued a Notification inviting applications from intending persons, seeking affiliation to start Law Colleges (3 Year Course) from the academic year 1996-97. Pursuant to the said notification appellant-Trust had submitted its application to the University of Bangalore (for short, 'respondent 2') seeking affiliation to start 3 year Law College in the City of Bangalore from the academic year 1996-97. After observing the statutory requirements, respondent 2 had approved the same. The record was submitted to the State of Karnataka (for short, 'respondent 3') for necessary action under Section 53(5) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. Respondent 3 sent a letter dated 11-10-1996 to the effect that prior approval of respondent 1 is necessary to consider the application for affiliation. The said letter was based on the circular dated 21-5-1996. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent 3 appellant filed W.P. No. 4247 of 1997. During the pen-
dency of writ petition, respondent 1 inspected the College premises of the appellant and declined to grant permission to the appellant to start 3 year degree Law Course. The said rejection of respondent 1 was also challenged by the appellant-Trust by filing W.P. Nos. 13820 of 1997 (Miranda Education Society (Registered), Bangalore and Others v State of Karnataka and Others). Writ Petition Nos. 4247 and 13820 of 1997 were taken up together along with other connected cases for consideration. The petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 18th of August, 1997. The conclusions arrived at by the Single Judge were summarised in the order as under:
"In view of the above, these petitions are disposed of as follows:
(i) The circular dated 21-5-1996 of the State Government (An-nexure-I, in Writ Petition No. 3957 of 1997) is quashed.
(ii) The communication of Bar Council of India dated 19-5-1997 to petitioner in W.P. No. 14671 of 1997 (Annexure-B) is quashed.
(iii) The communication of Bar Council of India dated 19-5-1997 to petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13820 of 1997 (Annexure-C) is quashed.
(iv) The State Government is directed to consider the Reports/Resolutions received under Section 53(5) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 in respect of both the petitioners and pass orders relating to recommendation in accordance with law and the Bangalore University is directed to act in accordance with such recommendation. Compliance within four months from the date of receipt of this order.
(v) Liberty is reserved to Bar Council of India to issue a notice as contemplated under Rule 13(1) of Section B of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, after affiliation of the colleges, and then take a decision in accordance with law within four months from the date of petitioners informing them about affiliation, if affiliation is granted.
(vi) It is made clear that the petitioner-colleges shall not make any admissions or commence imparting instructions in any course of study until the affiliation by the University and approval of such affiliation by the Bar Council of India".
3. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court respondent 1 issued a notice to the appellant. Appellant gave a detailed reply to the said notice. After considering the objections filed by the appellant to the notice issued, respondent 1 again declined its permission to the appellant to start the 3 year Law Degree Course.
4. Appellant aggrieved by the decision of respondent 1 in declining the permission, filed the present writ petition in which apart from challenging the correctness of the order passed by respondent 1, it assailed the constitutional validity of Section 7(1)(m) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Rules 12 and 13 of Section B of Chapter IV of Bar Council of India Rules. A mandamus directing respondent 1 to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was also sought for the injury alleged to have been suffered as a result of the impugned order.
5. During the course of the arguments before the Single Judge, Counsel for the appellant gave up challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 7(1)(m) of the Advocates Act, 1961. He confined his submission to the validity of Rules 12 and 13 of Section B of the Rules mentioned above. Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties after detailed examination upheld the validity of Rules 12 and 13 of the Bar Council of India Rules. The order of the Bar Council of India declining permission to the appellant to start the new degree law course was also upheld. Aggrieved by which the present appeal has been filed.
6. The points raised before us are the same as had been raised before the Single Judge.
7. Counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in V. Sudeer v Bar Council of India and Another, to contend that Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules were ultra vires of the provisions of the Advocates Act.
8. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering the validity of the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995, as amended by the Resolution dated 19th of July, 1998 prescribing pre-enrolment training and apprenticeship for new entrants to the profession. The rules were assailed on the ground of being in excess of the rule making power vested in the Bar Council besides being unreasonable, and arbitrary, hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court framed the following questions for consideration:
1. Whether the impugned rules are ultra vires the rules making power of the Bar Council of India, as available to it under the provisions of the Act?
2. If the above be answered in the negative and in favour of the Bar Council of India, whether the impugned rules are arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the guarantee of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
3. If the impugned rules are legal and valid, whether the respondent in Bar Council of India's appeal, who has got his Law Degree prior to the coming into force of these rules, can be required to comply with these rules if he applies for being enrolled as an 'Advocate' under the Act, after the rules came into force?
9. Supreme Court answered the first question in the affirmative. It was declared that a conjoint reading of Sections 23, 29 and 33 of the Advocates Act left no room for doubt that once a person is found to be qualified for admission as an Advocate upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions of eligibility laid down by sub-section (1) of Section 24, he will be entitled as of right to practice in any Court including the Supreme Court of India. It was held that the Bar Council could not in exercise of its rule making power impose any condition or qualification for enrolment over and above what was prescribed under Section 24 of the Act. It was further held that Section 7(1)(h) of the Act which empowers the Bar Council to promote legal education through the Universities imparting such education also, did not entitle the Bar Council to prescribe any pre-enrolment training or examination to be taken by those desiring to enrol themselves once they satisfied the requirement and the conditions for such enrolment as laid down by Section 24(1). Question Nos. 2 and 3 were answered in the light of the finding recorded on question No. 1. We are not concerned with question Nos. 2 and 3 in the present appeal.
10. On a thorough and detailed examination of the decision of the Supreme Court we are of the view that the said case is of no assistance to the appellant. The points involved before the Supreme Court were different from the points which fall for consideration in this appeal. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the rule prescribing pre-enrolment training was in conflict with Section 24. In the instant case, the rules in question have nothing to do with pre-enrolment training. Rules 12 and 13 deal with instructions in course of study of law which inter alia provide that no college shall after coming into force of the rules impart such instructions unless its affiliation has been approved by the Bar Council of India. The rule empowers the Bar Council of India to cause a law college affiliated to a University to be inspected by a Committee to be appointed by it for the purpose. The procedure which the Inspection Team has to follow and the matters to be kept in view have been prescribed. It is not a case where the rules provide for something which the statutory provisions contained in the Act do not support. On considering Rules 12 and 13 in a proper context, it is seen that they are aimed at ensuring 'maintenance of the standards in legal education in the country'. Rules 12 and 13 provide for the syllabus and the qualification of teachers, their salaries, the workload to be assigned to them. Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules are meant to advance the object underlying the provisions of the Act. Bar Council of India is the apex body under the Advocates Act charged with the duty of maintaining and prescribing standards for legal education in the country. The power to lay down the standards of legal education as envisaged by Section 7(h) of the Act is wide enough to include the power to prescribe the conditions subject to fulfilment whereof such education can be imparted. Rule 12 provides that no college shall impart instructions in a course of study in law except after the affiliation is approved by the Bar Council of India. It is to ensure that the quality of legal education does not suffer because of the poor conditions or infrastructure provided by the Institution. Similarly Rule 13 prescribes the procedure and the norms by reference to which the Bar Council of India shall have the request for approval verified and determined. Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules therefore do not transgress the rule making power of the Bar Council therefore do not suffer from the vice of being in excess of the power vested in the Council.
11. This Court while disposing of the earlier writ petitions had clearly held Rules 12 and 13 to be the provisions aimed at fixing standards of legal education. This is evident from the following passage:
The intention and purpose of these provisions (Rules 12 and 13) bill also give as indication as to whether 'approval' BCI is not a parallel Body granting affiliation. Rules 12 and 13 are made in the context of fixing standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in Law for admission as Advocates. The purpose of approval of affiliation is to ensure that the students admitted to such colleges are given proper instructions in accordance with the standards of legal education and become fit to be enrolled as Advocates. Hence, what is required and contemplated is approval and not prior approval".
12. In the earlier decision in Writ Petition Nos. 4247 and 13820 of 1997, this Court in a way upheld the validity of Rules 12 and 13. The challenge put forth to the validity of Rules 12 and 13 is also not available to the appellant as the appellant did not challenge the correctness or otherwise of the view expressed by this Court in the previous round of litigation.
13. Coming to the merits of the dispute it would be seen from the reading of the report submitted by the Inspector deputed by the Bar Council of India that the intended college existed only on paper. It was reported that the proposed college does not have any building of its own. The appellant proposed to use the existing school building on the basis of certain arrangements entered between the school and the society. Besides saying that the appellant had the right to make use of the building appellant did not produce any document which created either lease or licence in favour of the appellant to make use of the building. It had no library. There were only 234 books including the All India Reporter from the year 1994 onwards. The bills showing the purchase of law books produced before the Inspector were not accepted as the same had been issued only a day before the date of inspection. It was not shown that the appellant had made payment for the bills showing the purchase of law books. In the absence of proof of payment the inspection team felt that the purchase was a make believe and the books shown to them collected only for demonstration. The conclusions of the inspecting team were as under:
"In short, there is no building of their own, no campus, no true Library and no regular Faculty for the proposed Law College. It seems the Management is under a false notion that they need to set up all these only after the Ear Council of India granting approval of affiliation for the college. If this is accepted then in future no inspection will be required for new Law College; because everything will be arranged and set up only after getting the Bar Council of India's approval for the affiliation. In the above circumstances I am of the opinion that since the Management of the Pruthvi Law College, Bangalore has not complied with the mandatory requirements stipulated by the Bar Council of India Rules and directives, approval for the affiliation of the above college should not be granted and their application should be rejected".
14. Bar Council of India had raised certain questions and required the appellant to send their reply to the same. The explanation submitted by the appellant was dealt with by the Bar Council on each issue separately. The questions asked and the answer given by the appellant are reproduced below:
"(Q)(1) Whether the proposed Law College has already set up a Library, if so, please state?
(A) (1) A well-equipped Library would be immediately set up soon after permission of the Bar Council of India, but before starting of the college.
(Q) (2) Whether the Library has adequately been equipped with law reports, textbooks, periodicals and reference books to meet the requirements of the course of instruction given under the rules?
(A) (2) Library would be adequately equipped with law reports, textbooks, periodicals as per this standard requirements soon after permission of the Bar Council, initially, textbooks worth Rs. 1,35,000 is proposed to be purchased for the 1st year list enclosed (Annexure-R).
(Q) (3) Whether multiple copies of prescribed and recommended readings are available?
(A) (3) Yes. Would be made available immediately after affiliation.
(Q) (4) Whether the Library is under the charge of qualified Librarian?
(A) (4) A qualified Librarian is being appointed.
(Q) (5) Whether the Law College has its own building and if so, whether it is available for the exclusive use of the course?
(A) (5) As of now, the college has no building of its own. Applied for CA sites from BDA. Own college building would be acquired. Until then college would be run in the proposed spacious premises.
(Q) (6) How many classrooms are available? Please state the size of the rooms?
(A) (6) Size of the proposed each classroom size is about 25 x 30 feet.
(Q) (7) Whether the college building has been properly furnished?
(A) (7) Yes, would be furnished.
(Q) (8) If the college has no own building, whether the college has set apart any building fund?
(A) (8) As of now, the college has no building of its own. Own building would be secured. Building fund would be set apart from the commencement of the college".
15. From the reading of the answers given to the questions posed, it is evident that the appellant neither possess any building nor an ade-
quate library to impart a good legal education. It does not fulfill the infrastructural requirement. Neither before the learned Single Judge nor before us it has been stated that there has been any improvement after the inspection by the Inspecting team of the Bar Council of India deputed to inspect.
16. Counsel for the appellant contended that respondent 1 should have made a second inspection after the grant of affiliation by respondents 2 and 3, does not impress us. The said argument did not find favour with the Single Judge as the appellant in the writ petition did not claim any improvement in regard to either of the acquisition of a proper building, setting up of a proper library or appointment of staff, had taken place after the previous inspection. Even before us it is not the case of the appellant that it had acquired a proper building or that it had set up a proper library. In the absence of any factual averment in the writ appeal that improvement had been made after the previous inspection by the team sent by the Bar Council of India and the affiliation granted by respondents 2 and 3, the argument that there should have been a second inspection made after the affiliation granted by respondents 2 and 3 does not find favour with us.
17. It was then contended that Rule 13(e) of the Rules requires the Secretary of the Bar Council to cause a copy of the report, if adverse, to be sent to the Registrar of the University concerned for its comments and explanation if any. As the Bar Council of India had failed to send the adverse report to the Registrar of the concerned University, the order passed by the Bar Council of India was vitiated, In the statement of objections filed by respondent 1 it has been stated that copy of the inspection report had been forwarded to the Registrar of the University. University, respondent 2, in its statement of objection does not deny that the Bar Council of India had send a report to the Registrar of University. Rather the stand taken by the respondent is that the decision of the Bar Council of India is essential before the University would issue affiliation. Until and unless University issues clearance from the Bar Council of India, the appellant is not entitled to seek affiliation. There is no force in the submission of the Counsel for the appellant that the Bar Council of India did not conform to the requirement of Rule 13(e) of the Rules. It would be assumed that the Bar Council of India did send a copy of the report to the Registrar of the University. Learned Single Judge has examined the proposition from a reverse angle as well. Single Judge held that even assuming that a copy of the report was not actually forwarded to the Registrar, even then the failure on the part of the Bar Council to send the report would not result in vitiating the decision taken by it. Rule 13 did not indicate the consequences of noncommunication of the report to the Registrar. Rule 13(e) requires that a report should be communicated to the Registrar whose comments should then be placed before the legal committee for examination. Learned Single Judge proceeded to examine as to whether there were any material differences in the evaluation of the infrastructural facilities by the experts of the Bar Council of India on the one hand and the inspection team deputed by the University on the other. Mr. N.K. Patil, Counsel appearing for the University was directed to produce the relevant record. The report made by the local inspection team appointed by the University was a part of the record. On comparative reading of the report submitted by the Inspection team appointed by the Bar Council of India and the report submitted by the committee appointed by the University, the learned Single Judge concluded that the two reports did not differ materially from each other. Both the reports pointed that the appellant did not have any building or satisfactory arrangement for running the Institution. The University Inspecting team accepted the story that the college can be run efficiently in the school building which the school management was willing to make available. Regarding library it did not say that the appellant had the advantage of a proper library. In spite of this the University had agreed to grant the affiliation. Learned Single Judge expressed his anguish in the manner in which the local committee made recommendation for grant of affiliation, acceptance of the report by the syndicate and the approval by the Government without application of mind. Learned Single Judge observed:
"It is evident from the report of the Inspectors deputed by the University, that the society does not have any building or satisfactory arrangement for running the Institution. The team appears to have believed the story of the society that the college can be efficiently run in the school building which the school management had promised to make available. The local inspection team also did not report that the society had the advantage of a proper library. It also did not report that the college had appointed or made arrangements for appointment of qualified teaching staff needed for running the Institution. In none of these material particulars, is there any difference between the report of the local inspection team and that of the inspector deputed by the B.C.I., and yet the local inspection team could have possibly done so when the Institution did not satisfy the minimum requirement prescribed by the Bar Council of India for setting up of a Law College. What recommendations had been accepted by the Academy Council and the syndicate. So much so the recommendations eventually reached the Government who agreed to the grant of affiliation. A reading of the Government order shows as if the Government had made its recommendation not on account of its own satisfaction but because of the directions issued by this Court. The order creates an impression as though this Court had in the previous round of litigation directed the grant of affiliation to the Institution. That is however not the true position. The Government was at liberty to examine the issue objectively and take a proper decision instead of acting mechanically and creating an impression that it had no choice in the matter. It is indeed regrettable that statutory authorities at State level should fail to effectively discharge their duties and ensure that Institutions which do not have the requisite infrastructural facilities do not set up shop. In retrospect the regulation of new professional Institutions in medical, engineering or other professional courses by appropriate Central legislations has been fully justified. But for the vigilant attitude adopted by the central agencies, and left to authorities at the State level only, an Institution which does not possess even the basic infrastructure like a building library and staff could take birth and thereby add to the downward slide in the quality of legal education. There is in the circumstances, no room for interference with the decision taken by the Bar Council of India in declining approval to the affiliation granted to the Institution. If at all something needs to be done it is for the Bangalore University to do some introspection to prevent such affiliations being granted in future. The University would also do well to take steps to recall immediately the affiliation granted by it to the proposed Institution".
18. We did not have the advantage of examining the records ourselves. Counsel for the appellant failed to displace any of the apprehensions expressed by the Single Judge in his order. We would concur with the findings recorded by the Single Judge and approve the observations made in the order that the statutory authorities at the State level had failed to discharge their duties in a proper manner. They had failed to ensure that the Institution which did not have the requisite infrastructure facilities do not set up shop for imparting education. We are satisfied that the appellant did not have any building and library or any satisfactory arrangement for running the Institution. The Bar Council of India had rightly declined to give approval to the affiliation granted to the Institution.
19. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. As we are dismissing the appeal without issuing notice to the respondent, we make no order as to costs in the appeal.