Mr. S Ramakrishna vs The Bar Council Of India on 23 July, 2012

[Cites 8, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Mr. S Ramakrishna vs The Bar Council Of India on 23 July, 2012

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                             1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                    BANGALORE

         DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2012

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

     WRIT PETITION NO. 22151 OF 2012 (EDN-AD)

BETWEEN:

MR. S RAMAKRISHNA
S/O M P SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT KUMBARA BEEDI
HESARAGHATTA VILLAGE AND HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
PIN: 560088
                                                ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. H SURESH, ADV.)

AND

1.     THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
       NO.21, ROUSE AVENUE
       INSTITUTIONAL AREA
       NEW DELHI-110 002
       REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

2.     KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
       NAVANAGAR
       HUBLI-580 025
       REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

3.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                             2

     DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
     VIKASA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE-560001
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. R. OMKUMAR, AGA FOR R3)


      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 -
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AT ANNEXURE-K, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                       ORDER

Petitioner having secured 40.5% in the B.Com. degree examination, has presented this petition calling in question the vires of Rule 28 of Schedule III, Rule 7 of Chapter II of Rules of Legal Education, 2008, framed by Bar Council of India; Regulation 7(b) and 7(c) of Regulations governing 3 year LL.B. degree course in law made under Regulation 86 r/w Sec.34(2)(ii) and Sec.49 of the Karnataka State Law University Act, 3 2009, Annex.J; the letter dt. 8/12-6-2012 Annex.F of the Registrar, Karnataka State Law University and for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent - University to admit the petitioner to LL.B. course.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is over the fixing of 45% as minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination, for admission to the 3 year LL.B. law degree under Rule 7 of Chapter II of the Rules of Legal Education. A perusal of the Rules of Legal Education - Annex.K, what is discernable is that the said rules are framed for maintaining standards of Legal Education and recognition of degrees in law for the purpose of enrollment as an advocate and inspection of Universities for recognising its degrees in law under the Advocates Act, 1961 made by the Bar Council of India in consultation with the Universities and State Bar Councils. The prescriptions of minimum 4 percentage of marks not below 45% of the total marks in case of general category applicants and 40% of the total marks in case of SC and ST in the qualifying examination, Plus 2 examination in case of integrated 5 year course or degree course in any discipline for 3 years LL.B. course for the purpose of applying and admission to a law degree of any recognised university in either of the streams, is in order to achieve proficiency in the profession of advocates. This criteria cannot be said to be either arbitrary, capricious or to be in violation of fundamental rights. The need for proficiency is the hallmark of advocacy and the prescription of minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination is with a salutary purpose. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it militates against Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, must stand rejected. 5

3. Regulation 7(b) and 7(c) of the Regulations governing 3 year LL.B. course in law issued by the Karnataka State Law University - Annex.J1 is in conformity and in compliance with Rule 7 of the Rules of Legal Education issued by the Bar Council of India and as a consequence, the challenge to the said Rule stands rejected.

4. So also the letter dt. 8/12-6-2012 - Annex.F of the Karnataka Law University stating that the petitioner having secured 40.5% marks in the qualifying B.Com. degree examination is ineligible for admission to the law course for the year 2012-13, cannot be found fault with. Hence the petitioner is disentitled to a writ of mandamus as sought for.

5. It is no doubt true that in a batch of petitions ie., W.P.21052/10 and connected petitions pending 6 before the Division Bench of this court, the relief is one for quashing of Regulation 28 of the Rules of Legal Education in so far as it relates to prescribing the minimum age for admission. It is also true that by an interim order the petitioners therein were permitted to apply for admission to the LL.B. degree course, subject to the result of the petitions. That interim order is inapplicable to the petitioner, for the simple reason that the petitioner does not possess the minimum percentage of marks for admission to the 3 year LL.B. degree course. In that view of the matter, petitioner cannot have any grievance over Regulation 28 of the Rules of Legal Education.

Petition, devoid of merit, is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE Rd/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court