MOHANAN M.E. and Others v. University of Calicut and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **WA.No. 1745 of 2016 () IN WP(C).16929/2016** ## **--------------------------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16929/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-05-2016** ## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS :** **-----------------------------------------** **1. MOHANAN M.E. AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. V.SANKARANARAYANAN NAIR, 23/1485 D, SREECHAITANYA, THIRUVANNUR, PANNIYANKARA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673 029.** **2. ANIL KUMAR K. AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.V.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, "KRISHNA", 8/2, CHELANNUR, P.O.KANNANKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 616.** **3. FIRSHAD KORAMBA** - **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN K., "KORAMBA", NILAMBUR ROAD, CHANADAKKUNNU-679 342.** **4. ANURAJ B.R.** - **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN T.T., THIRUTHAMTHODI HOUSE, VELAM PERUVAYAL P.O., KUTTIADI (VIA), KERALA-673 508.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SMT.DEEPTI SUSAN GEORGE SRI.ARJUN RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR SMT.LALIA ELIZABETH PHILIP** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :** **---------------------------------------------** **1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE.** **3. THE GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE LAW COLLEGE BUILDING, POOLAKKADAVU ROAD, NGO QUARTERS, VELLIMADUKUNNU, KOZHIKODE-673 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.** **R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER B.JAYASURYA R1, R2 BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rmm** **CR** ## Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan & Devan Ramachandran, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- ## W.A.No.1745 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25[th] day of November, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Devan Ramachandran, J. Shorn of all embellishments, as are often added, the fundamental purpose of legal education is to train women and men and make them ready and capable of the legal profession. Law Universities and Colleges around the world are making climacteric reforms in the concatenated ways in which they prepare law students for practice and to introduce them to the immense possibilities of the legal profession to effect and address every facet of human life. Law students are being increasingly trained to use legal thinking in the complexity of actual legal practice and to focus on astuteness in legal analysis complemented by ethical and social skills. WA 1745/16 2 2. Legal science is the most important catalyst of a sound legal policy, as it is specifically here that legal ideology as a social institution is formed. The foundations that we build today in legal education will define the quality of our polity tomorrow. The question of judicial education requires careful nurture with new elements and developments in line with modern and dynamic society. 3. Unseen forces in the world are propelling transformation in the legal profession. A riptide of the 21[st] century social and economic trends - ascending of Information Technology, globalisation of economic activity and increasing integration of knowledge - have already, unbeknownst to many, radically changed the way legal education is looked at. However, tragically many of our law universities and colleges have been reluctant partners in this change. 4. However, there is no dearth of critics of contemporary legal education in India and Kerala is often WA 1745/16 3 no better. Many experts and legal specialists are inclined to believe that legal education in Kerala is enduring a very serious crisis. 5. Time has come to rethink how we prepare our young lawyers for the future and for the profession. The necessity of improvement is dictated by time and realities to which we no longer can afford to be myopic. Law Colleges have to be ultimately collaborative, diverse, international, technologically attuned to the times and entrepreneurial. Law Colleges have to be set on a trajectory to the future - whether they like it or not - pulled along by the restless and worried students they service and the legal and judicial systems they feed. The wheels are in spin and law colleges have to change to fit the times. 6. We have begun this judgment fully being aware that no amount of rhetoric can ultimately drive change unless affirmative and qualitative fortitude is exhibited by the framers of legal education to immediately accord singular and primary thought to the concerns of the WA 1745/16 4 students and the maladies which have afflicted legal education in Kerala. The facts of this case, as we will set out below, exhibit the sheer exasperation of the student community in the perfunctory manner in which some of our Universities and Colleges handle legal education, which have impelled them to come knocking to the doors of this Court. 7. The appellants in this appeal are students of three year LL.B. Course studying in the Government Law College, Calicut, which is affiliated to the University of Calicut. They had filed the writ petition in a very peculiar and diacritic situation, relevant to a time at which it was filed. They had approached the learned Single Judge challenging a notification issued by the University of Calicut scheduling regular/supplementary examinations of the IX Semester BBA, LL.B. (five year), IX Semester LL.B. (five year) and V Semester LL.B. (three year) to commence from 25.05.2016. The appellants had impugned that notification, a copy of which is produced as Exhibit P5 in the writ petition, WA 1745/16 5 essentially on the ground that the third respondent Law College had not been able to even attain the mandatory minimum number of working days as is prescribed under the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 ('the Rules' for brevity) before the examinations for the relevant semesters were to commence. The appellants relied upon Rule 10 of the Rules, which is as under: “10. **Semester System** . The course leading to either degree in law, unitary or on integrated double degree, shall be conducted in semester system in not less than 15 weeks for unitary degree course or not less than 18 weeks in double degree integrated course with not less than 30 class-hours per week including tutorials, moot room exercise and seminars provided there shall be at least 24 lecture hours per week. Provided further that in case of specialised and/or honours law courses there shall be not less than 36 class-hours per week including seminar, moot court and tutorial classes and 30 minimum lecture hours per week. Provided further that Universities are free to adopt trimester system with appropriate division of courses per trimester with each of the trimester not less than 12 weeks.” The appellants, therefore, aver that unless the college is able to attain the minimum number of working days, as is WA 1745/16 6 prescribed under that Rule, no examinations could have been scheduled or conducted since that would become violative of the mandatory provisions under the Rules. 8. The learned Single Judge elaborately considered the contentions of the appellants. As has been noticed above, the examinations were scheduled to commence on 25.05.2016 and the writ petition was filed on 02.05.2016. The learned Single Judge, after an arduous consideration of all the pleadings and materials on record, found that there were only 83 working days that had been attained by the College and that the prescription as per Rule 10 was short of seven days and about 35 lecture hours. The learned Single Judge, however, refused to issue any orders in the writ petition and dismissed the same for the reason that other students studying in other colleges affiliated to the University have not been impleaded and because, postponing of the examinations at the request of four students of a particular college - the petitioners - would result in great prejudice to the other students, who are WA 1745/16 7 awaiting examinations. The learned Single Judge has, however, considered the impact of Rule 10 and had referred to the judgment of this Court cited by the petitioners, namely, **Satheesh Kumar v. Mahatma Gandhi University** (2015 (4) KLT 151). 9. It is ineluctable that this Court earlier had an occasion to consider the impact and scope of Rule 10 in **Satheesh Kumar's case** (supra). It was declared by the learned Single of this Court as under: “Therefore the prescription of the minumim hours of lecture classes and holding of tutorials, moot court and seminars by the Bar Council of India is to be scrupulously followed by the universitites. The above exercises are essential to chisel out the best in a law student many of whom are destined to become lawyers, judicial officers, parliamentarians etc. The possible lag in the course is not an execuse for the Universities to commit breach of the statutory rules and the classes cannot also be telescoped.” Subsequently, in **Leo Lukose v. Cochin University of Science and Technology** (2016 (1) KLT 180) the same learned Single Judge, who had declared the law as above, was considering the impact of strikes called by certain students and student unions leading to disrruption of WA 1745/16 8 classes thus consequentially causing inadequate number of working days and lecture hours, which are to be attained under the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules. It was then declared, without leaving any room for doubt, that the students who chose to participate in a strike or dharna may walk out of the class rooms at the risk of their attendance without disrupting the ongoing classes attended by the willing students. It was also emphatically reiterated that 'no student can claim right to obstruct the students from entering the class rooms under the guise of agitation and dharna. Higher education, though not a fundamental right, is indisputably a human right as part of one's level of thinking'. The learned Single Judge again affirmed that the prescriptions contained in the Rules relating to number of class hours and working days are to be punctiliously followed. 10. When this appeal was heard by this Court, we pointed out to Ms.Lalia Elizabeth Philip, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, that due to efflux of WA 1745/16 9 time the reliefs sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted now. The learned counsel conceded to this but said that the appellants were prosecuting the appeal only to ensure that the imperative prescriptions and constitutive requirements under Rule 10 of the Rules are followed by the college without fail so that the career of the students undertaking legal studies are not prejudiced or affected on account of the non attainment of number of classes under the Rules. 11. There is no doubt about the force of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is indubitable that if the College does not attain the prescribed class hours or number of working days as are required under the Rules, it would imperil the students who are pursuing legal studies, since it is surely anticipatable that it may lead to a situation where the Bar Council of India would not recognise the course or the examination conducted in violation of the sine qua non contained in the Rules. It would not be mere conjecture to WA 1745/16 10 apprehend a situation where even the students who complete the course and pass the examinations and who are issued with graduation certificates by the concerned Universities and Colleges would encounter resistance at the hands of Bar Council in allowing them to enroll as Advocates on its Rolls. If objections are raised by the Bar Council that the students did not complete the requisite number of working days or hours as are mandatory, it would be totally justified, imperilling the future of our young advocates - in - waiting. Unfortunately, as has been noticed above, even though at least two judgments of this Court have spoken unequivocally about the absolute requirement of the Colleges and Universities to follow the inviolable prescriptions under Rule 10 of the Rules without fail, it is grossly distressing that in spite of such emphatic declarations, even now for one reason or the other or for one cause or the other, the Colleges do not attain the minimum requisite class hours or working days before examinations are scheduled. WA 1745/16 11 12. We do not know what purpose would still be served by declaring again and again the unexpendable nature of the requirement of minimum hours and working days. However, since the students still complain that the Colleges do not attain the requisite number of class hours or working days and that the competent authorities remain impervious to such transgressions, it becomes obligatory on our part to ensure that any such violation of the mandatory Rules do not enjoy convenient inconspicuousness. 13. We caution the authorities that if they are blind or they pretend to be purblind to these violations, the courts would be constrained and forced to step in to redress the legitimate issues raised by the student community. We cannot obviously be occluded in our vision when such patent instances of violations are brought to our notice and we caution the Colleges and Universities that if such transgressions are still continuing and placed to our notice, we would be compelled to issue such appropriate WA 1745/16 12 orders in future to ensure that our next generation would not suffer on account of the cavalier or lackadaisical attitude adopted by them in such matters of great importance. We stop here because the specific prayers in the writ petition have now become ungrantable on account of efflux of time and because we are not aware if the issues raised herein still remain for the semesters succeeding the one that has been referred to in the writ petition. We have, however, no doubt that, if any such instance is brought to the notice of this Court by the students in appropriate proceedings, at any time from hereon, we would be alive to the situation and would not hesitate in any manner to issue such orders as are appropriate and commensurate to douse the indifference exhibited by the authorities in such matters. We leave it there. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge WA 1745/16 13 Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv