Besides, the Consortium of National Law Universities, two individual petitioners, Tamanna Chandan Chachlani and Rishabh Soni have also challenged the BCI's contentious decision.
A Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU Consortium) has approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to scrap the one-year LL.M programme and de recognise foreign LL.M.
A Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian heard the matter on Wednesday before adjourning it for Thursday to hear the parties on interim relief.
Besides, the Consortium of National Law Universities, two individual petitioners, Tamanna Chandan Chachlani and Rishabh Soni have also challenged the BCI's contentious decision.
The BCI had recently notified the BCI Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020 (Rules) scrapping the one-year LL.M course. The rules were notified in the official gazette on January 4.
It mandated that the post-graduate course in law leading to Master's degree, i.e LL.M has to be of two years spread over four semesters.
The Rules also partly derecognised foreign LL.M stating that the same shall be equivalent to LL.M obtained in India only if it is taken after obtaining the LL.B degree from any foreign or Indian University which is equivalent to the recognized LL.B degree in India.
The NLU Consortium submitted that the very foundation of these impugned Rules is "fallacious and based upon a gross misunderstanding of the Advocates Act and/or other extant statutory provisions."
"The Rules not only seek to assume jurisdiction and powers in derogation of the law but also usurp jurisdiction and authority vested in other statutory bodies," the plea said.
Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the Court that none of the NLUs were consulted by BCI before taking the decision.
"Not a single University was consulted. We don't want to sound elitist but these NLUs are islands of excellence," Dr. Singhvi said.
The petition also contended that Advocates Act (under which BCI has assumed jurisdiction) "cannot be used to regulate any degree or academic or vocational programme which is not a prerequisite to enrolling as an advocate in India".
"Please look at the Advocates act. LLM is not a legal practitioners degree. BCI deals with enrollment requirement," Dr. Singhvi submitted.
"Are you saying Bar Council has no power to regulate LLM a it's not a qualification for enrolment?" CJI Bobde asked.
"Yes. One year course and two year course are regulated by UGC and it was brought by knowledge commission under the HRD ministry," Dr. Singhvi responded.
response to the BCI's claim that it possesses the power to regulate higher legal education because NEP 2020 does not make any provision for it, the NLU Consortium stated that "mere absence of ‘legal education’ in NEP2020 cannot ipso facto vest powers in BCI to occupy the field."
The Bench, during the hearing, expressed its inclination to issue notice.
Dr. Singhvi pressed for interim relief citing the fact that many applications have already been received for admission to one-year LL.M course for the upcoming year.
"5,000 applications were received when rules were issued by BCI which stated that they will come into effect when they are notified. The students had to appear for LLM CLAT. Status Quo must continue," Dr. Singhvi said.
The Bench asked the petitioner to file on affidavit the argument that students have applied for LL.M and fees have been collected for the same, so that the Court can consider prayer for interim relief.
The case was adjourned for tomorrow after Dr. Singhvi undertook to file the same today.
The BCI Rules, besides scrapping one-year LL.M also prescribed a slew of other aspects relating to the same.
It stated that admission to LL.M will be through Post Graduate Common Entrance Test in Law (PGCETL) which is conducted by the BCI. Until the PGCETL is introduced the present system followed by respective Universities shall be followed. Once the BCI introduces PGCETL it shall be mandatory to admit the students from the merit list of the Test.
With respect to an LL.M obtained from a foreign university the Rules said that "LL.M. degree obtained from a Foreign University, which has been prosecuted without an equivalent LL.B. degree shall not be equivalent to Indian LL.M. degree," it has been prescribed.
The petition filed through Advocate Rohit Kumar Singh said that the Rules were issued without any legal or statutory power and "that they are wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and disproportionate and violate Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India."
"There is no rational basis for the scrapping of the one-year LL.M. programme nor for other directions in the impugned Notification," the petition contended.
The lead petitioner, Tamanna Chandan Chachlani, who is a law student, has also assailed the Rules to the extent of abolishing one-year LL.M programme and failing to recognize LL.M from foreign universities.
The petition, filed through advocate-on-record Rahul Shyam Bhandari, stated that the Rules infringe the petitioner's fundamental right to education and is discriminatory.
It also amounts to interference in her right to practice profession and will adversely affect her future career and liberty of choosing quality education, the plea said.
There is no rational clarification for abolishing the one-year LL.M program in the country and the decision by BCI is vague, the petition added.
It was also submitted that the BCI does not have powers to regulate higher education in the field of Law. That, the plea points out, is the job of University Grants Commission or of an expert body.
Thus, the notification is ultra vires its parent Act, i.e. Advocates Act of 1961, it was claimed.
0 Comments