Three year moratorium period pressed upon by the Bar Council of India on opening of new colleges was called off by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Case of the Petitioner
The petitioner, Chandigarh Education Society instituted a petition wherein it was stated that the Court should permit them to establish a new institution namely, Chandigarh Law College. Further it was mentioned in the petition to call off the three year moratorium period forced upon by the Bar Council of India, as it infringes their fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry any occupation, trade our business, enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
Petitioners stated in their petition that they had purchased land for establishing the Law College on 15.01.2018. It was further stated that they planned on opening a new college admitting 240 students for the academic session of 2020-2021.
Thereafter, Land Use Change Report was granted, construction was commenced, affiliation from Punjab University was approved and No Objection Certificate was granted from the State Government. However, the BCI approval was still awaited under the Legal Education Rules, 2008 to open a new law college.
Petitioners contended that the BCI had no authority or power under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 to restrict the opening of new colleges. They contended that this section only empowers the Bar Council to frame a basic structure for the institutions in order for them to run a law college. It was further alleged that BCI is not approving the application of society,
however on the contrary it demanded the deposits to be done even when the matter was sub judice before the Court.
Case of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the moratorium was only imposed only with the objective of improving the standards of the existing legal education institutes. The Counsel stated,
“unning of educational institutions can legally be regularized by way of rules/ notifications/ guidelines and circulars etc”.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that the Council had failed to justify through any of the provisions of the Advocates Act which empowers it to impose a blanket ban on the opening of any new legal education institute. It further stated that the Council had failed to mention any law institute that had been shut down till date for non-adherence to the prescribed standard of Legal Education or circulars issued by the BCI.
In the words of the Court:
“If the existing Centers of Legal Education /Law Colleges/Law Institutes have failed to comply with the guidelines and circulars issued by the BCI or BCI has failed to ensure compliance thereof by getting timely inception reports or scheduled information etc., the BCI cannot justify its failure to ensure maintenance of standards of Legal Education by imposing complete ban on setting up of New Law Colleges, in violation of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India that deals with right of citizens to practice any profession, or to carry any occupation, trade or business,” held the Court.
Thus it was held that by the Court that BCI had the power to issue circulars or lay down formulations that aid in keeping the standard of legal education intact, however it does certainly have the power to issue blanket ban on opening up of new institutes concerning legal education.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
Case Details
Before: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: Chandigarh Educational Society v. Bar Council of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rekha Mittal.
0 Comments