Satheesh Kumar N., Abhijith Chandran, Rahul Surendran v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/7TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 28492 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------1. SATHEESH KUMAR. N., AGED 22 YEARS S/O.NARAYANANKUTTY PUNNASSERY HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM NENMARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 508. 2. ABHIJITH CHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRAN P.V., PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, THANIYATH LANE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. RAHUL SURENDRAN, S/O.SURENDRAN.D., HARINANDHANAM, TMC 16/455, THAMARAKULANGARA ROAD, N.F.GATE THRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI - 682 301. BY ADVS. SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): - ------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN - 686 001. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 4. GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. WP(C) No.28492/2015 : 2 : 5. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 21, ROUSE AVENUE, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEAR BAL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110 002. (ADDL. R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.9.2015) R1 -R 3 BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R BY DEEPU THANKAN (AMICUS CURIAE) R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN R5 BY SRI.RAJIT, SC, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.28492 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** - EXHIBIT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. - EXHIBIT P2 : A COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER ISSUED FROM 4TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE. - EXHIBIT P3 : A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.EA1/I/8/LAW/2015 DATED 21.8.2015. - EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION CALENDAR OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY FOR THE YEAR 2015 - EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE CLASS DETAILS HELD IN THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE. - EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.9.2015 ALONG WITH A PROPOSED EXAMINATION SCHEDULE FORWARDED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE STUDENTS TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT THROUGH FOURTH RESPONDENT FOR RE-SCHEDULING THE EXAMINATIONS. - EXHIBIT P8 : A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY INTIMATING THE AMENDMENT TO UNIVERSITY ORDINANCE. ## **RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS** ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 23/5/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NOS.12240/14 AND 1 13089/2014. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. **==> picture [61 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [343 x 69] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [136 x 15] intentionally omitted <==** “It is better to produce less number of well trained law degree holders than to produce a large number of ill-trained or untrained law degree holders” Observed Honourable Mr.Justice J.Chelameswar while speaking for the Bench in C.M.Balaraman v. Registrar, Osmania University, Hyderabad and others [AIR 1998 Andhra Pradesh 105]. The present writ petition has been filed by the law students complaining of appalling standards in imparting training in the College despite the prescriptions of the Bar Council of India. 2. The petitioners are the students of the five years LLB Course and three years LLB Course of the Government Law College, Ernakulam functioning under the Mahatma Gandhi University. Their common complaint is that the Semester examinations of the University are often scheduled without being preceded by sufficient number of teaching hours. It is asserted that there was only 128 hours of study in the X Semester of the WP(C) No.28492/2015 2 five years Course and 135 hours of study in the VI Semester of the three years Course. The petitioners rely on Ext.P2 attendance register of the College to drive home the point that Semester examination sans study hours is totally unjustified. 3. The petitioners rely on Ext.P8 notification issued by the University to the effect that each Semester should consist of a minimum of 450 contact hours distributed over 90 working days. The relevant clause reads thus:- Each Semester consisting of a minimum of 450 contact hours distributed over 90 working days, inclusive of examination days within 18 five-day academic weeks. The Rules of Legal Education framed by the Bar Council of India as regards the conduct of classes in the Semester System for the LLB Course are also relied on by the petitioners to buttress their contention. 4. Another disturbing feature highlighted by the petitioners is the overlapping of the Final examinations of the X Semester and the Supplementary examinations of the III Semester. It is stated that WP(C) No.28492/2015 3 many of the students of the X Semester have to write the Supplementary examinations of the III Semester as they had not been successful earlier. I prima facie felt that the examinations have been scheduled unmindful of the plight of the students who have to sit for Supplementary and Final examinations. There was paucity of materials to come to a conclusion that sufficient number of lecture hours, tutorials, moot court and seminars were held before the examinations. I therefore suo motu impleaded the Bar Council of India as an additional respondent in the writ petition and issued an interim direction to the Controller of the Examinations of the University. The interim direction obliged the Controller to take a decision on the question of re-scheduling of the examinations within a period of three days. It is now reported that the Controller has accordingly postponed the VI and X Semester regular examinations to a date after 15.10.2015 which is a sigh of relief for the petitioners and other students. There is still an apprehension in the mind of the petitioners about the possible clash of the Supplementary examinations of the WP(C) No.28492/2015 4 IV Semester with the Final examinations. I am sure that the Controller will phase the examinations in such a way that sufficient gap is given between the examinations for it to be taken comfortably. 5. I would however like to add a few words about the legal education in the State since several writ petitions are filed every year on the eve of examinations for re-scheduling. I heard Mr.Jennis Stephen, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr.Varghese M.Easo, Standing Counsel of the University and Mr.Rajit, Standing Counsel of the Bar Council of India. I also heard Mr.Deepu Thankan, Advocate as Amicus curiae who deserves a rich encomium for the able assistance rendered to this Court and also produced the relevant notifications. 6. The Bar Council of India is constituted under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short] and is a body corporate having perpectual succession and a common seal. The functions assigned to the Bar Council of India are enumerated in Section 7 of the Act and the one relevant for our purpose is contained in Section 7(1)(h) of the Act. The same WP(C) No.28492/2015 5 reads as follows:- 7. Functions of Bar Council of India:(1) The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be-- (h) to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. Section 49 of the Act confers power on the Bar Council of India to make rules for discharging its function and the one relevant for our purpose is contained in Section 49(1)(d) of the Act. The same reads as follows:- 49. General power of the Bar Council of India to make rules:- (1) The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and in particular, such rules may prescribe-- (d) the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose; It is abundantly clear therefore that the Bar Council of India can lay down standards of legal education to WP(C) No.28492/2015 6 be observed by the Universities in India in consultation with the State Bar Councils. 7. The Bar Council of India has in this regard framed Rules of Legal Education, 2008 ['the Rules' for short] and Chapter II thereof deals with the Standards of Professional Legal Education. Rule 10 of the Rules pertains to the Semester System in the unitary and integrated courses and is to the following effect:- ## 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 han 18 weeks in double degree integrated course with not less than 30 classhours 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 WP(C) No.28492/2015 7 free to adopt trimester system with appropriate division of courses per trimester with each of the trimester not less than 12 weeks.” Thus the Rules prescribe the minimum number of class hours per week including tutorials, moot room exercise and seminars apart from the lecture hours as also the minimum number of weeks. There has to be 36 class hours per week including seminar, moot court and tutorial classes and 30 minimum lecture hours per week in the case of honours law courses. Ofcourse the Universities are also free to adopt trimester system with appropriate division of courses per trimester with each of the trimester not less than 12 weeks. 8. That the Act and the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India have an overriding effect over State enactments has been succinctly stated in C.M.Balaraman's case (supra) as follows:- “The legislative field of education including technical education and medical education in the Universities etc., is the subject matter of Entry 25 of the Concurrent List of the seventh Schedule. Similarly legislative field pertaining to legal, medical and other WP(C) No.28492/2015 8 professions is also a subject matter of Entry 26 of Concurrent List of the seventh Schedule. Therefore the Advocates Act which is referable to both the Entries 25 and 26 is within the competence of the Parliament and the provisions thereof have an overriding effect over the provisions of any State Law dealing with education or Universities, by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The Bar Council of India being a body created by such a superior law made by the Parliament with specific functions assigned to it under the said Law of the Parliament has the necessary legal authority to regulate the standards of legal education in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Rules made thereunder.” That the Universities in the Country have to observe the standards of legal education prescribed by the Bar Council of India has been held in Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick [1994 (2) SCC 102] as follows:- 14. ......... Section 49(1)(d) empowers the Bar Council of India to make rules which may prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in India and the WP(C) No.28492/2015 9 inspection of Universities for that purpose. If the acquisition of a degree in law is essential for being qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, it is obvious that the Bar Council of India must have the authority to prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in the country. That the Bar Council of India retains adequate power to control the course of studies in law has been reiterated in Bar Council of India v. Dayanand College of Law and others [(2007) 2 SCC 202] as follows:- 11. ..... Thus, though the Bar Council of India may not have been entrusted with direct control of legal education in the sense in which the same is entrusted to a university, still, the Bar Council of India retains adequate power to control the course of studies in law, the power of inspection, the power of recognition of degrees and the power to deny enrolment to law degreeholders....” Therefore the prescription of the minimum hours of lecture classes and holding of tutorials, moot court and seminars by the Bar Council of India are to be scrupulously followed by the Universities. The above WP(C) No.28492/2015 10 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 excuse for the Universities to commit breach of the statutory rules and the classes cannot also be telescoped. 9. It will be desirable if the Registrar and the Controller of Examinations of the Universities assure themselves that the necessary exercises as above are completed by each of the Colleges. Such a subjective satisfaction can be arrived at on the basis of the inputs from the Principal/Head of the Department of Law in the various Colleges. It is only after being convinced of the requisite number of lecture classes, tutorials, moot court and seminars can the examination for each of the Semester be scheduled. The minimum hours stipulated by the Bar Council of India should have been completed before the commencement of the examinations for each of the Semester. This will also instill more seriousness in their study by the law students as in the case of medical and engineering students across the State. The Registry of this Court WP(C) No.28492/2015 11 shall forthwith forward a copy of this judgment to the Registrar of all the Universities in the State under whom the different law colleges function. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.