The Supreme Court Today (April 29) questioned why the Bar Council of India controls law college syllabi, stressing that academicians should lead legal education reforms. The Court sought responses from the Centre, UGC, and the Attorney General.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today raised an important question:
“Why is the Bar Council of India (BCI) controlling the syllabus for law colleges in India?”
The Court hinted that such responsibility should be given to education experts, not the BCI.
This matter came up during a hearing of a case where the Court was looking into the BCI’s 2021 decision. In that year, BCI had removed the one-year LL.M. (Master of Laws) programme in India and also refused to recognise LL.M. degrees from foreign countries.
The BCI informed the Court that it had already formed a committee, led by a former Chief Justice of India, along with other stakeholders, to study this issue.
But the judges on the Bench, Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh, questioned the logic behind allowing BCI to decide legal education matters. Justice Kant clearly said that this work should be done by academic experts. However, he agreed that the BCI can help in practical legal training, like teaching how to draft legal papers.
Justice Kant said,
“Why should BCI decide curriculum, etc. of law colleges? BCI has an onerous responsibility to provide training…(it) may require to hire the services of universities…because it has to be pan-India…You can have training on art of drafting, citing case laws, etc. and it should be part of your statutory responsibility …The curriculum has to be entrusted to the academicians.”
Justice Kant also pointed out that the quality of new judges (judicial officers) coming out of law schools is not good. He questioned if these judges understand the common man’s problems or if they just pass mechanical orders without much thought.
He said,
“In legal education, the judiciary is the primary stakeholder…What kind of officers are we getting? Do they understand the plight of the common man… or just deliver mechanical judgments? Academicians can look at this.”
Justice Kant further added that the BCI already has many other important duties, like improving the welfare of Indian lawyers. He suggested that instead of focusing on inspecting law colleges, the BCI should aim at making Indian lawyers recognised worldwide.
He remarked,
“BCI has to take care of its own responsibility…look at the number of lawyers we have in our country. You want global recognition of lawyers. Focus on that instead of inspecting law colleges.”
In today’s official order, the Supreme Court also asked for the opinions of the Central Government and the University Grants Commission (UGC) on these matters. The Court requested the Attorney General (AG) of India, R Venkataramani, to assist during the next hearing.
The Court ordered,
“On consideration of the issue and other allied issues with respect to powers of BCI, we would like to have a reply by the Union and UGC. We request AG to assist the court on the next date of hearing. We direct UGC to submit its reply. Let the Union also file a comprehensive affidavit.”
The judges also said, during the hearing, that any committee looking into the issue of the one-year LL.M. should include Vice-Chancellors and academic experts.
Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, who appeared for the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU Consortium), said that the BCI was not only trying to control LL.M. courses but also PhDs, diplomas, and other educational qualifications in law.
He stated,
“The purpose of BCI was to regulate entry into legal profession…then came the statute which was on admission….we are not saying abolish two year (LL.M.s)…but will a practitioner (a practising lawyer) like to do a two-year LL.M. or a one-year LL.M.?”
In response, the BCI explained that an LL.M. is mainly for those who want to teach in law colleges, so a longer course may be needed.
Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, representing BCI, asked,
“Now, the question is, is one-year LL.M. enough? Or should you study properly and compete a two-year LL.M?”
But the Court again raised the bigger question — should BCI really be deciding how legal education should be structured? Justice Kant made a comparison with the medical field and said that even the Medical Council of India does not interfere in the same way.
ALSO READ: Fake Law Degrees | “Initiate Nationwide Verification Of Advocates”: BCI Orders
Justice Kant said,
“Does the Medical Council of India prescribe what should be the qualification for the MD or MS course? The answer is a simple no.”
This matter is still under review, and the next hearing will be important to decide who should really control legal education in India — the BCI or education experts.
CASE TITLE:
Tamanna Chandan Chachlani v. Bar Council of India and connected matters.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjiv Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
