A group of Indian legal professionals opposes the (BCI) Bar Council of India’s recent notification imposing new regulations for law colleges, including criminal background checks and biometric attendance. They criticize the lack of transparency, clarity, and justification for these measures, arguing they’re unconstitutional, invasive, and disproportionately target law students. They demand immediate withdrawal.
New Delhi: A group of lawyers, law teachers, law students, and concerned citizens of India have collectively expressed their strong disagreement with the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) recent notification (BCI:D:5186/2024 (LE Circular No.13/2024)) issued on September 24, 2024. The group urges the immediate rollback of this notification, which outlines several new regulations for law colleges, including criminal background checks for students, attendance compliance, biometric attendance systems, and the installation of CCTV cameras in all centers of legal education.
The BCI has stated that the notification was issued in response to judicial observations regarding the need to monitor law students’ antecedents and backgrounds. However, the BCI has failed to disclose the specific case or judicial context in which these observations were made. This lack of transparency has raised concerns, especially as the legal profession demands high standards of ethics and accountability. The group argues that the BCI itself should be held to these same standards and should have engaged in open consultations with stakeholders before issuing a notification with such far-reaching consequences.
The group’s primary criticism is the lack of clarity in the objectives of the notification. It is unclear what the BCI aims to achieve with these regulations, and no connection has been made between the stated goals and the measures proposed. The BCI has also not justified the imposition of these drastic regulations, which were made mandatory without considering their implications. The group asserts that this arbitrary notification violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Read Also: BCI Seeks Suspension of New Criminal Laws Amid Nationwide Protests
A particular point of contention is the rule requiring law students to declare any ongoing First Information Report (FIR), criminal case, conviction, or acquittal before receiving their final marksheets and degrees. The group questions why law students are being singled out for this requirement, asking whether similar rules apply to students of other disciplines. They argue that no law prohibits someone with an ongoing FIR or criminal case from pursuing education. Many undertrials and convicts in prisons are allowed to continue their education, so the BCI’s decision to withhold degrees or marksheets for undeclared criminal antecedents is seen as unjust and without legal basis.
Moreover, the requirement for law colleges to conduct thorough criminal background checks on students is viewed as a waste of time and resources. The group believes that such an imposition serves no credible purpose and is beyond the powers of the BCI. They argue that, at best, the BCI could make it voluntary for students to declare their criminal backgrounds, but failing to do so should not result in withholding degrees.
Another significant issue raised by the group is the requirement for biometric attendance and CCTV surveillance in law colleges. They point out that such measures violate the right to privacy established by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Puttaswamy case. The BCI has not provided any justification for these invasive measures, nor have they shown evidence of widespread problems with attendance that would require such drastic actions. The group asserts that these surveillance measures do not meet the test of proportionality and are unconstitutional.
Additionally, the group criticizes the lack of provisions in the BCI’s notification regarding the security of sensitive personal data collected through biometric attendance and CCTV surveillance. They question whether law colleges have the resources to implement these systems and who will be responsible for ensuring the safety of this data.
Finally, the group addresses the requirement for students to declare that they are not pursuing any other degree or employment alongside their legal education. While they acknowledge that this may be justified to ensure students remain committed to their education, they argue that many law students from poor backgrounds may be working part-time to support themselves. In such cases, students should not be penalized for working while pursuing their education, as long as they meet the attendance and academic requirements.
In conclusion, the group calls for the immediate withdrawal of the BCI’s notification, deeming it arbitrary, unconstitutional, and disconnected from the realities of legal education in India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
