The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench on Wednesday had dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of Rule 2(xxiv) of the Legal Education rules, 2008 as framed by the Bar Council of India.
The petitioners herein “Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University” which is a State University and its affiliated college “Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law” has filed a writ petition since it was not approved by the Bar council and as a result the student who graduated could not get enrolled with the State Bar council as their college was not approved.
Senior Advocate M.G. Bhangde, appearing for the petitioner said that the Advocates Act did not confer any power whatsoever to the Bar Council of India to frame rules that would have retrospective effect. The rules as framed could be given prospective effect only. By including permanent approval that was granted earlier by the Bar Council of India to the Law College in the term “regular approval” as defined by Rule 2(xxiv), a vested right that had accrued in favour of the Law College by virtue of such grant could not be taken away.
Senior Advocate A.S. Jaiswal, appearing for the Bar Council of India said that it was the function of the Bar Council of India to promote legal education and to lay down the standards of legal education in consultation with the Universities imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. It was also its function to recognize such Universities whose degrees would permit enrolment as an Advocate and for that purpose either the Bar Council of India or the State Bar Councils were required to visit and inspect the Universities. He placed reliance on Archana Girish Sabnis vs. Bar Council of India, (2015) 4 SCC 498 wherein, it was held that the Bar Council of India has power to act within its rule making power to frame Legal Education Rules, 2008.
The case was heard by the division bench comprising of Justice Amit Borkar & Justice A.S. Chandurkar observed that the rule 45 of legal education rules gives over riding effect and any resolution passed earlier by the Bar Council of India or the Legal Education Committee which is inconsistent with the rules would not bind the Bar Council of India. Thus, any resolution earlier passed by the Bar Council of India/Legal Education Committee granting permanent approval would not bind the Bar Council of India after the Rules of 2008 came into force.
The Court further observed that Bar Council of India has already passed a resolution wherein it is stated that the legal education rules, 2008 would come into force from the Academic Session from 2009-10. Rule 14(1) mandates approval by the Bar Council of India without which no Centre of Legal Education can admit any student and impart instructions in a course of study in law. Thus, unless regular approval as contemplated under the Rules of 2008 is received by a Centre of Legal Education notwithstanding it having been granted permanent approval earlier, such Centre of Legal Education would not be in a position to admit any student and impart instructions from 2009-10 onwards.
The Court placed reliance on judgement of Supreme Court in Bar Council of India vs. Aparna Basu Mallick, AIR 1994 SC 1334, wherein it was held that the Bar Council of India had got ample powers to regulate and control the mode and method by which legal education should be imparted and improved. The court made an observation that grant of permanent approval to the Law College was an existing right and not a vested right.
The High Court while dismissing the writ petition held that Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 is not ultra vires the rule making power of the Bar Council of India. The challenge to its validity fails.
-India Legal Bureau