 Rules, 2020 which has scrapped the one-year LL.M course.){kind=link}
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of a plea by the Consortium of National Law Universities challenging the Bar Council of India Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020 which scrapped the one-year LL.M course.
The bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian will hear the plea for interim relief on Thursday. It directed the Consortium to file an affidavit regarding the commencement of admission process by National Law Universities for LLM programme.
As per the BCI notification, LLM degree obtained from a foreign university will be considered equivalent to LLM obtained in India only if the degree is obtained after completing LLB from any Indian or foreign university recognized in India. The notification adds that one-year LLM degree obtained from any foreign university will not be considered equivalent to LLM degree obtained in India.
Besides the Consortium of National Law Universities, two individual petitioners, Tamanna Chandan Chachlani and Rishabh Soni, have also challenged the BCI decision.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Consortium of National Law Universities, submitted that the entrance test held earlier by NLU will now be held by the BCI statutorily. The power of the BCI is derived from the Advocates Act, which directs that the BCI does not have legislative competence. “Across the world there is a 1-year LL.M programme. Not a single university is consulted before taking such a step,” he said.
Chief Justice Bobde sought a clarification, “What you are saying is that the BCI does not have the power to increase or decrease the duration of a course?”
Singhvi responded that they are just saying that it should not abolish the one-year course. He said the rules that are being challenged will abolish the applications received by 22 best universities who conduct an entrance exam for a one-year course. Not a single university has been consulted.
The bench then expressed its inclination to issue notice. Singhvi urged the bench to pass an order maintaining status quo. He requested the court for an interim relief citing that around 5,000 applications have been received for admissions in one-year programs and the fees have also been collected.
Chief Justice Bobde asked Advocate Singhvi to show where he mentioned about the collection of fees from 5,000 students. The bench directed that an affidavit be filed in this regard.