IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.48322/2017 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
RAJESH .H S/O. HEMANTH KUMAR .M AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO.1420/203 1ST MAIN, VIDYARANYA NAGAR, EN-ROUT, PRASANNA THEATRE, BANGALORE – 560 023. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, HUBLI, REP. BY ITS VOICE – CHANCELLOR, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI – 580 025.
3. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, NAVANAGARA, HUBBALLI – 580 025.
4. B.M.S. COLLAGE OF LAW, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL, NO.97, KAVILAKSHMISHA ROAD, VV PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 004. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT: PRAMODINI KRISHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT STRIKING DOWN THE IMPUGNED REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE FIVE YEAR BA, LLB INTEGRATED DEGREE COURSE IN LAW ESPECIALLY CLAUSE 15 PROMOTION SUB CLUSE [A] PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-H AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is enrolled for his first year B.A., LL.B., course in the fourth respondent college for the academic year 2015-16. It is averred that he has appeared for the first and second semester examination in the first year and he has successfully completed his first year, but in the second year, he has not been able to comply with the stipulation prescribed in Regulation 15(a) of the Regulations governing the five year B.A., LL.B., Integrated Degree Course in Law.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to Regulation 15(a) concerning promotion to the next year of the course. Regulation 15(a) reads as under:
“15 PROMOTION (a) No student shall be promoted to the next year of the course unless he/she has passed in a minimum of one subject in each semester.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a condition is harsh and the same cannot be applied to the students pursuing the five year Integrated Degree course. The fact that such a condition is harsh for the petitioner student cannot lead to a conclusion that it is unreasonable. In my view, the said condition has been stipulated so as to maintain standards in legal education that have been prescribed by the respondent No.2/University comprising experts in the field. Although the petitioner has completed his first year and was eligible to pursue his second year comprising his third and fourth semesters, he cannot enter third year as he has not passed in a minimum of one subject in the said semesters.
4. My attention has been drawn to Regulation 14 with regard to the Regulations governing three year LL.B., degree course in law, which reads as under:
“14 PROMOTION (a) Every student shall be promoted to the next higher class irrespective of the fact that he has failed in any of the papers prescribed for the study.
(b) Students are required to successfully complete the entire course within six years from admission to the course.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a student, who is pursuing a three year LL.B. Course has to be promoted to the next higher class, he can be promoted irrespective of the fact that he has failed in all the papers prescribed in the previous year. But when it comes to a student of a five year Integrated Degree Course in Law, he has to pass a minimum of one subject in each semester before being promoted to the next semester. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is blatant discrimination between the students of five year LL.B. Degree Course and three year LL.B. Degree Course inasmuch as a harsh condition has been prescribed for promotion to the next year of the course insofar as the five year LL.B. Degree Course is concerned, but not for students pursuing three year LL.B. Degree Course.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Bar Council of India, which has prescribed Rules on standards of legal education, has not prescribed any such condition or rider insofar as promotion to the next year of study is concerned, but the respondent No.2/ University has done so, which is impermissible. In the circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said Regulation being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution must be struck down by this Court and that the petitioner may be permitted to be admitted to the third year of five year B.A., LL.B. Degree Course and to continue to pursue his studies although he has not complied with Rule 15(a) of the Regulation.
7. At the outset it is necessary to cite from Chapter II of the Report of the Law Commission of India on Review of Advocates Act, 1961, dated 03/07/1998.
“Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 requires the Bar Council of India to lay down standards in consultation with Universities and State Bar Councils. The question naturally arises as to what is the scope of the expression “laying down standards of legal education” under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act. It is apparent that this function of the Bar Council of India is intended to include not only the prescription of subjects to be taught but also to determine inter alia the duration of the course the eligibility for entry into the course the content and distribution of subjects in the curriculum the hours of teaching, the text books to be followed the nature and extent of physical and intellectual facilities required the qualifications of the teachers etc. This is neither new nor extraordinary procedure for professional education. The Medical Council, the Dental Council, the Nursing Council, the Pharmacy Council and such other professional organisations do exercise these powers in varying degrees according to the demands of circumstances in order to fulfill their statutory and professional obligations of maintaining standards on the part of their members. This power of professional bodies to lay down norms determining the qualifications and training of its members exists in other countries as well. In England the academic requirements for barristers and solicitors are determined by the respective professional bodies and not by the universities which happen to teach the bar-prescribed academic courses.
Section 49(af) and (d) give the Bar Council of India power to make rules inter alia (a) to prescribe the minimum qualification required for admission to a course of degree in law in any recognised university and (b) to prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by such universities. By Section 24(1) of the Act the qualifications for enrolment as an advocate are subjected to the rules made by the Bar Council of India in this regard. The power to make rules prescribing the standards to be followed by universities imparting legal education and to enforce those rules through inspection of law colleges and recognition of degrees in law of such universities has never been in doubt and universities by and large followed the Bar Council of India rules in structuring their law education programmes.
There were two initiatives of the Bar Council of India worth mentioning in this sordid history of so-called legal education. The first one happened in early 1980s through a determined bid to re-structure professional legal education even when several Bar Councillors were opposing the move. After a detailed State-wise study of the status of legal education saner elements in the Bar Council were convinced that a change had to come sooner than later. A five-year integrated LL.B. programme was developed with a view to give a professional orientation a multi-disciplinary approach and a clinical thrust to legal education.
“…… It is the expectation of the Council that universities and colleges in the country will continue to impart liberal education in law and expand it to larger sections of people by developing correspondence programmes if necessary for the benefit of persons in different occupations and in public life so as to advance their occupational goals on the one hand and assist the rule of law and constitutional government on the other. This would mean that the country may require not only the existing centres of liberal legal education working at convenient hours in the morning or in the evening, but also several more such institutions in the remote corners of our vast country. The rules now formulated are directed towards professional legal education and not towards liberal legal education colleges which may continue within the framework of the University System in the country” (emphasis added).”
8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008, it is noted that under Chapter II of the same, prescribes the Standards of Professional Legal Education, Rules 4 and 5 read as under:
“4. Law courses There shall be two courses of law leading to Bachelors Degree in Law as hereunder, (a) A three year degree course in law undertaken after obtaining a Bachelors’ Degree in any discipline of studies from a University or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India.
Provided that admission to such a course of study for a degree in law is obtained from a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.
(b) A double degree integrated course combining Bachelors’ Degree course as designed by the University concerned in any discipline of study together with the Bachelors’ degree course in law, which shall be of not less than five years’ duration leading to the integrated degree in the respective discipline of knowledge and Law together.
Provided that such an integrated degree program in law of the University is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.
Provided further that in the case of integrated double degree course the entire double degree course can be completed in one year less than the total time for regularly completing the two courses one after the other in regular and immediate succession, meaning thereby, that if the degree course in the basic discipline, such as in Arts, Science, Social Science, Commerce, Management, Fine Arts, Engineering, Technology or medicine etc. is of three years’ duration of studies, integrated course in law with the basic degree in the discipline could be completed in five years’ time but where the degree course in basic discipline takes four or five years, the integrated degree in law with such degree course in the discipline would take one year less for completing in regular time than the total time taken for the two degrees taken separately if completed back to back.
Explanation 1: Double degree integrated course such as BA., LL.B. can be completed within (3+3-1) i.e. 5 years. But if one intends to do B.Tech., LL.B. it can be done in (4+3-1) i.e., 6 years.
Explanation 2: Suppose in a University one can have a two years’ graduation in any social science leading to BA degree, in that case also the composite double degree integrated course leading to BA, LL.B. would be of five years duration because double degree integrated course cannot be of less than five years’ duration.
5. Eligibility for admission:
(a) Three Year Law Degree Course: An applicant who has graduated in any discipline of knowledge from a University established by an Act of Parliament or by a State legislature or an equivalent national institution recognized as a Deemed to be University or foreign University recognized as equivalent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to declare equivalence, may apply for a three years’ degree program in law leading to conferment of LL.B. degree on successful completion of the regular program conducted by a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.
(b) Integrated Degree Program: An applicant who has successfully completed Senior Secondary course (‘+2’) or equivalent (such as 11+1, ‘A’ level in Senior School Leaving certificate course) from a recognized University of India or outside or from a Senior Secondary Board or equivalent, constituted or recognized by the Union or by a State Government or from any equivalent institution from a foreign country recognized by the government of that country for the purpose of issue of qualifying certificate on successful completion of the course, may apply for and be admitted into the program of the Centres of Legal Education to obtain the integrated degree in law with a degree in any other subject as the first degree from the University whose such a degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.
Provided that applicants who have obtained + 2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or First Degree Certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence method shall also be considered as eligible for admission in the Integrated Five Years course or three years’ LL.B. course, as the case may be.”
On a reading of the said Regulations, it becomes apparent that the Bar Council of India has made a clear distinction between a Three Year Degree Course in Law and Five Year Integrated Degree Program in Law. Firstly, a student is eligible to join a three year degree course or a Bachelors’ Degree in law after securing a Bachelor’s Degree from a University recognized by the Bar Council of India. But a student who seeks admission to five year Integrated Degree Program must have successfully completed only a Senior Secondary School Course or equivalent Senior School Leaving Certificate Course from a recognized University/Board in India or outside India i.e., 10+2 or 11+1 student. Secondly, the duration of two courses are also distinct. As already noted, the Bachelors’ degree in law is a three year degree course, whereas, Integrated Degree Course is five years. The reason being, the number of subjects which the students have to study are distinct during the course. Thirdly, the syllabus which the students have to study are also distinct. The students who have enrolled for three year degree course do not have to study subjects such as history, economics, political science and other such subject in humanities stream as they would have already secured a Bachelors’ degree in humanities or Arts, Science or Commerce or any other equivalent degree from a University recognized by Bar Council of India, whereas the students who have entered five year integrated degree program have to study such subjects. Such students do not possess a degree from a recognized University, which is defined as a ‘First Degree’ under Regulation 2(viii) such as Arts, Fine Arts, Science, Commerce, Management, Medicine, Engineering, Pharmacy, Technology etc., and therefore they have to study such subjects in the five year degree programme.
9. On a close perusal of Rules of Legal Education, it is noted that the said Rules are no doubt silent on the criteria for promotion to the next year of course. In the absence of there being any Rule, regarding promotion in the Bar Council of India Rules, the respondent No.2/University has issued Regulations with regard to promotion, which stipulates the criteria for promotion. After a comparison between the two degree courses, the Regulations for promotion in five year Integrated Degree Course and three year degree course in law are respectively extracted as under for immediate reference:
“14 PROMOTION (Three year Degree Course) (a) Every student shall be promoted to the next higher class irrespective of the fact that he has failed in any of the papers prescribed for the study.
(b) Students are required to successfully complete the entire course within six years from admission to the course.”
“15 PROMOTION (Five Year Integrated Degree Course) (a) No student shall be promoted to the next year of the course unless he/she has passed in a minimum of one subject in each semester.
(b) Students are required to successfully complete the entire course within ten years from admission to the course.”
On a comparison of the two Regulations, it becomes clear that having regard to the duration of the two courses, a student who is pursuing a three year degree course has six years to complete the course and therefore, irrespective of whether he has passed any of the papers prescribed for study, he can be promoted to the next higher class, but a student admitted to a five year integrated course of law has ten years to complete the course and having regard to the nature of the syllabus and the type of subjects which he has to study before pursuing the subjects in law, he is bound to pass in at least one subject in each semester. It may be that the period of time stipulated to complete the course is twice the number of years of the course in both types of degrees. For instance, if there are seven subjects in first and second semesters, a student of five year Integrated Degree Course is bound to pass in one subject at least in each of the two semesters i.e., at least two subjects, so as to be promoted to the second year. Such a stipulation has been made by the respondent No.2/University having regard to the standards of legal education to be maintained by the University. Such a stipulation is not contrary to the Rules and Regulations prescribed by the Bar Council of India. Further, the said stipulation, in no way dilutes the standard of education as prescribed by the Bar Council of India. Such a stipulation cannot be held to be unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India as students who are enrolled for a five year integrated degree program in law are different from the students who are enrolled for a three year degree program. Their eligibility to the said courses is different. Their pre-qualification to enter into the respective courses are distinct. The syllabi of the two courses are distinct and hence, the students of the two courses cannot be compared to be equal or on par. There is an intelligible differentia between the two courses having a reasonable nexus to the object sought have to be achieved and hence, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner herein has not been able to pass one subject in the 3rd and 4th semester and as a result of the prescription in Regulation 15(a) of the said Regulations, he is unable to seek admission to the third year degree course. It is noted that the petitioner has complied with Regulation 15(a) in his first year. There has been no challenge made to the said Regulation by the petitioner till date. It is only in the midst of his course, he has come up with this challenge in the second year of his degree course as he has not been able to comply with the minimum stipulation insofar as promotion to the third year is concerned. Hence, the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the same in the middle of his course, merely because he has not been able to comply with the same so as to be permitted to prosecute his third year B.A., LL.B., programme.
11. The law with regard to prescribing standards of education by a University and non-interference by Courts in such matters is settled by the following decisions:
a) In University of Mysore and others vs.
Gopala Gowda and another reported in AIR 1965 SC 1932, it has been held that the Academic Council is invested with the power of controlling and generally regulating teaching courses of studies to be pursued, and maintenance of the standards thereof, and for those purposes the Academic Council is competent to make regulations, amongst others, relating to the courses, schemes of examination and conditions on which students shall be admitted to the examinations, degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions. The Academic Council is thereby invested with power to control the entire academic life of the student from the stage of admission to a course or branch of study depending upon possession of the minimum qualifications prescribed.
It was further found that failure by a student to qualify for promotion or degree in four examinations is certainly a reasonable test of such inaptitude or supervening disability. If after securing admission to an institution imparting training for professional course, a student is to be held entitled to continue indefinitely to attend the institution without adequate application and to continue to offer himself for successive examinations, a lowering of academic standards would inevitably result. Power to maintain standards in the course of studies confers authority not merely to prescribe minimum qualification for admission, courses of study, and minimum attendance at an institution which may qualify the student for admission to the examination, but also authority to refuse to grant a degree, diploma, certificate or other academic distinction to students who fail to satisfy the examiners’ assessment at the final examination.
b) In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth reported in 1984 (4) SCC 27, it is held that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.
c) In Shirish Govind Prabhi Desai vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1993)1 SCC 211, it is reiterated that in matters of academic standards, court should not normally interfere or interpret the rule and that such matters should be left to the experts in the field.
It is further observed that “prescribing the academic standards falls exclusively in the domain of the special bodies like Senate, Board of Governors, Syndicate etc. The court would normally not interfere with such prescribed standards and especially when they are intended to improve the academic standards in their respective institutes. The scope of judicial review in such matters would be very limited”.
d) In Medical Council Of India vs. Sarang & Ors reported in (2001) 8 SCC 427, It is observed that in matters of academic standards, courts should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the experts in the field.
12. Further, it is also observed that when the University prescribes standards of education and in that regard prescribes regulations for promotion, it is done by an expert body and this Court cannot sit in judgment over the merits of such Regulations under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is hence, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE S*