N.Prakash vs Bar Council Of India

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

A 9th semester student of the 5 year B.A.LL.B Course at Sree Narayana Law College, Poothotta is before us. He approached the learned Single Judge in the writ petition with the following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders quashing Exhibit P12 notification scheduling 7th semester five year B.A.LL.B examinations from 15.02.2023.

II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the second respondent to schedule 7th semester five year B.A.LL.B examinations only after the fourth respondent college attains the required class hours of 108 hours including 90 lecture hours for the 7th semester.

III. Issue such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

According to the appellant, the college is affiliated with Mahatma Gandhi University. Examinations for the 7th semester commenced from 15.02.2023. The classes for the 7th semester was completed one and half years ago and the examinations is scheduled after one and half years. The appellant's case is that the college had not followed the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 issued by the Bar council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961. According to him, there should have been 108 class hours and 90 lecturer hours. However, the college has not adhered to those working hours while completing the classes for the 7th semester. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in WPC No.28492 of 2015 and the judgment of Division Bench in WA No.1745 of 2016. According to him, this Court had already stressed the importance of the minimum working hours to be adhered to by the college before commencement of examination. It is further submitted that the non-adherence would imperil the legal education.

In regard to the strict adherence of the Rules made by the Bar Council of India to be complied with, there cannot be a quarrel on those aspects. However, we had to consider this case in a totally different background. The appellant was promoted to the 8th semester, even according to him, without completing the mandatory hours as prescribed by the Bar Council of India. He was again promoted to the 9th semester thereafter. He has not raised the complaint regarding not following the mandatory working hours before he was promoted to the 8th semester . He came up with the writ petition only when examinations were scheduled for the 7th semester, i.e., after one and half years. Had he approached this Court earlier before commencement of the 8th semester, this Court could have directed the college to conduct extra classes as mandated by the Legal Education Rules. The present concern raised by him is only after one and half years and that too, only when examinations are scheduled. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the matter. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the college authority has to ensure that hereafter, atleast they should strictly follow the Rules of Legal Education issued by the Bar Council of India while completing the relevant classes for semesters.