Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The Bar Council of Delhi (in short referred to as the „BCD‟ and BCI are also represented by their counsels. They have drawn our attention to the provisions of aforesaid Rule 4. They have also placed before us the BCI Rules made under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Reference was made to Rule 4 thereof which reads as under:
"4. The student shall be required to put in minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures on each of the subjects as also at the moot courts and practical training courses:
"Considering the aforesaid position, we are also of the opinion that the aforesaid provision being mandatory in nature should be strictly adhered to and be complied with by the respective colleges. If there is any violation of the said rules, it would be open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the University Authorities and also to the notice of the Bar Councils and when such violation is noticed, appropriate remedial measures shall be taken by the University Authorities, BCD and the BCI. It is also made clear that the University Authorities shall not allow any deviation from the requirements of Rule 4 of Section A of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules unless they receive specific permission from the BCI."

...................

We feel bound by the observations made therein." Hence, in the present case also this court is bound by the aforesaid decisions of the Division Bench of this Court. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ITS RULES Justice A.M Ahmadi once remarked that "We have waited long enough to repair the cracks in the legal education system of this country and it is high time that we rise from arm-chairs and start the repair in the right earnest" . Hence, the Bar Council of India sought to introduce regulations of law courses through out the country. BCI derives its power under the Advocates Act, 1961 which has its source from Entries 77, 78 of List I which deal with the subject of persons entitled to practice before Supreme Court and the High Courts. Section 7 of the Indian Advocates‟ Act 1961 states the functions of the Bar Council of India and a glance at sub clause (h) and (i) of the same show that one of the important functions of the BCI and the State Bar Councils is to promote legal education in the country and to lay down standards of the legal education in the Law Universities of India. It is under the aegis of this section that the Bar council of India Rules, 1975 have been enacted. In imparting such legal education, under clause (i) of Section 7, it is the function of the BCI to recognize the universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate. It would be, therefore, quite apparent that whereas the formal education in the field of law is given by various universities and colleges, it is the Bar Council of India which is the statutory body which grants affiliation to such universities or colleges and is also responsible to maintain the standards of professional conduct and etiquettes of the advocates. It is thus manifest that the BCI alone is endowed with the responsibility to act as a sentinel of the professional standards and conduct of the advocates in the country. Rule 21 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 provides that no college shall impart instructions in a course of study of law until its affiliation is approved by the BCI. Sub Rule (g) of Rule 21 provides that if the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council is satisfied with the standards of legal education; and /or the rules for affiliation or continuance of affiliation provided for in these rules are not complied with; and/or the examination are not such so as to secure to persons undergoing legal education the knowledge and training requisite for the competent practice of law, then the Legal Education Committee shall recommend to the BCI disapproval of affiliation of the continuation of the legal education in such a university or college. Hence, indisputably, it is the BCI which has the power and the responsibility to regulate the goings in the field of legal education.

33. Encapsulating the entire scenario, this very rule which was under challenge in S.N.Singh I, was recommended to be amended by the Division Bench so as to bring the same in conformity with Rule 3 of Bar Council of India Rules. The Division Bench in S.N. Singh's case I clearly stated that a law course cannot be equated with a normal academic course and therefore, in a law course, attendance of lectures, tutorials and seminars is very essential to law students. The Division Bench also observed that the Bar Council of India has framed statutory rules which are binding on all the institutions conferring LLB degree course which are recognized by the Bar Council of India and in this background the Division Bench thought it fit that the University of Delhi would be required to bring its rules in conformity with the Rules of Bar Council of India and accordingly directions were given to the University to amend its rules in the matter pertaining to attendance to bring them in conformity with the corresponding rules framed by the BCI. Needless to mention, the University of Delhi pursuant to the said directions given by the Division Bench, amended its earlier sub rule 8(a) and replicated it in conformity with Rule 3 of Bar Council of India. After amending sub rule 8(a) of Ordinance VII, which has already been reproduced above, the said amendment now in place which is in complete conformity with the Bar Council of India Rules and BCI being the apex statutory body governing the professional standards of the lawyers in the country, no case of shortfall of attendance can be entertained and allowed unless the same strictly falls in the aforesaid norms.