(2017) 11 SCC 188(1)
Order dated 19-9-2008
(Before B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.)
SLP (C) No. 22337 of 2008
1. Exemption allowed. Issue notice. Until further orders, operation of the impugned order WP No. 13698 of 2007 shall remain stayed.
(2017) 11 SCC 188(2)
Order dated 22-6-2009
(Before Dalveer Bhandari and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 4-5 in SLP (C) No. 22337 of 2008
2. These applications shall be taken up along with the main matter which is listed for final disposal on 29-6-2009. The parties are at liberty to file additional documents, if any, within three days from today. Looking to the gravity of the matter, we would request either the learned Attorney General or the learned Solicitor General to assist the Court in this matter. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes to serve copies of the petition to the Central Agency and copies to the learned Attorney General and the learned Solicitor General.
(2017) 11 SCC 188(3)
Order dated 29-6-2009
(Before Dalveer Bhandari and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.)
SLP (C) No. 22337 of 2008
3. This petition filed by the Bar Council of India raises very serious questions regarding affiliation and recognition of law colleges by the Bar Council of India. It is a matter of common knowledge that before granting affiliation proper exercise is not carried out. No serious efforts have been made by the authority concerned to learn about the infrastructure, library, faculty before granting affiliation or recognition. It is also necessary for the authority concerned to know about the qualification of faculty members and whether they are paid salaries at least according to recommendation of 5th and 6th Pay Commission. And at the present day it is also necessary to know whether the law college is providing computer internet facility to law students.
4. The entire future of the legal profession depends on ultimate product of these law colleges. Looking to the gravity and seriousness of the matter, we request the learned Solicitor General and President of the Bar Association and the Chairman, Bar Council of India to look into the matter seriously and submit a report to this Court as expeditiously as possible. They would be at liberty to associate experts or any other person which they deem it appropriate. All the necessary expenses will be borne by the Bar Council of India.
5. The learned Solicitor General submits that a preliminary report of the Committee can be submitted to the Court within four weeks. List this matter after four weeks.
6. Meanwhile, as far as the respondent Institution is concerned, we direct that an inspection team, according to Rule 20 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 would be sent to this Institution which would consist of at least two members of the Bar Council and two experts one of them would be the Director of the National Judicial Academy and the other would be Prof. N.M. Mitra, former Director of the Law School, Bangalore. The inspection team would visit the Institution and submit a report before the next date of hearing.
(2017) 11 SCC 189(1)
Order dated 9-9-2009
(Before Dalveer Bhandari and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.)
SLP (C) No. 22337 of 2008
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the report, as directed by this Court, could be circulated within two days from today.
8. Mr B.K. Satija, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 1 submits that the inspection has taken place and he would like to file a reply to the Inspection Report. Let the same be filed within four days with an advance copy to the learned counsel appearing for the parties. List this matter for further directions on 17-9-2009.
(2017) 11 SCC 189(2)
Order dated 6-10-2009
(Before Dalveer Bhandari and Dr M.K. Sharma, JJ.)
SLP (C) No. 22337 of 2008
9. In pursuance to the direction of this Court a Committee appointed by this Court consisting of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council of India; Director, National Judicial Academy and Prof. N.M. Mitra, former Director of the Law School, Bangalore visited Barakatullah University, Bhopal and Bonnie Foi Law College on 16-7-2009. The Committee gave a comprehensive report and pointed out a number of shortcomings in the infrastructure and functioning of the College.
10. The Committee also suggested that in order to have a minimum level of acceptable legal education to be offered to students and for the Bar Council of India to approve affiliation, the following would be necessary:
(1) The University must grant affiliation according to its rules.
(2) There must be a competent principal who is given adequate authority and autonomy.
(3) Faculty must be confirmed to be full time, and of adequate competence, motivation and commitment. This may be confirmed by the University and Bar Council of India through an independent and detailed evaluation of faculty capacity and competence. A programme for staff training and development is also required.
(4) Library and computer centre must be strengthened and appropriately used as an integral part of the teaching process.
(5) University must put in place a continuing quality evaluation mechanism to monitor the Institution.
(6) Physical infrastructure must be properly maintained to provide a hygienic and conducive atmosphere for education.
(7) The salaries and terms and conditions of teachers and other staff must comply with the University Grants Commission's norms.
11. Mr Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bonnie Foi College has drawn our attention to the affidavit of Dr G.K. Iyer filed on 6-10-2009. Reply to the affidavit could not be filed by the Bar Council of India because of paucity of time. Mr Chaudhary submitted that shortcomings which were indicated in the report of the Committee have been rectified and he prayed that the Committee be again requested to inspect the Institution and submit a fresh report to the Court. Mr Chaudhary further submits that the College may be given one more opportunity to demonstrate that all shortcomings pointed out by the Committee have been rectified.
12. In the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to request the same Committee to visit Barkatullah University and Bonnie Law College as expeditiously as possible. The Committee is requested to carefully scrutinise whether the College concerned has meticulously followed all the directions given by the Committee in its report dated 16-7-2009.
13. The Bar Council would indicate the amount of expenses which would be necessary for carrying out the fresh inspection and on receipt of the letter from the Bar Council, the amount would be deposited by the College with the Bar Council of India within a week.
14. In pursuance of the request made by this Court, the learned Solicitor General has submitted a report. Mr M.N. Krishnamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India submits that it would be necessary to place this report before the Bar Council of India in its next meeting which is scheduled to be held on 31-10-2009 and 1-11-2009.
15. List this matter for further directions on 10-11-2009.
(2017) 11 SCC 191(1)
Order dated 14-12-2009
(Before Dalveer Bhandari and H.L. Dattu, JJ.)
SLP (C) No. 22337 of 2008
16. We have heard Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Solicitor General of India. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the time-frame for implementation of the three-member Committee report has been given to the Court. According to this time-frame, preparation of parameters and list of experts for inspection of Law Schools/Colleges would be completed by 31-12-2009.
17. Mr Subramanium also submitted that the Directorate of Legal Education will be operationalised by 31-12-2009 and the Directory of Law Schools and Law Colleges will be prepared by 15-1-2010. He further submitted that the institutions which have not been inspected earlier, would be inspected on or before 31-1-2010.
18. Mr Subramanium further submitted that preparation of a detailed database of all law schools and law colleges would be prepared by 31-1-2010. He also informed the Court that a meeting of the National Legal Knowledge Council has been fixed on 1-2-2010.
19. The most significant achievement of this entire exercise has been the introduction of the Bar Examination. The learned Solicitor General submits that the first Bar Examination shall be conducted in July-August 2010 by a specially constituted independent body, consisting of experts of various disciplines of national stature.
20. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Central Government to ensure that the entire programme framed by the three-member Committee is operationalised forthwith. We further direct the institutions concerned to fully cooperate with the Bar Council of India.
21. We deem it appropriate to list this matter for further directions on 8-2-2010 at 2.00 p.m.
(2017) 11 SCC 191(2)
Order dated 7-5-2010
(Before Dalveer Bhandari and H.L. Dattu, JJ.)
SLP (C) No. 22337 of 2008
22. Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Solicitor General has handed us a status report today. He has also given a timeline for implementation of the Bar Examinations. We would like to study this status report. List this matter on 30-7-2010.
(2017) 11 SCC 192(1)
Order dated 2-3-2016
(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and Uday U. Lalit, J.)
SLP No. 22337 of 2008 with WP (C) No. 987 of 2013
WP (C) No. 987 of 2013
23. Issue notice. Mr A.K. Prasad, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent 1. Liberty is given to the petitioner to serve the Standing Counsel for Respondents 3 and 4 through dasti service.
24. List these matters on Friday, 4-3-2016 along with TCs Nos. 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 36 of 2011 and 88 of 2012.
(2017) 11 SCC 192(2)
Order dated 18-3-2016
(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and R. Banumathi and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
SLP (C) No. 22337 of 2008 with TCs (C) Nos. 12-18 and 36 of 2011, TCs (C) Nos. 8, 75, 88 of 2012, WP (C) No. 987 of 2013, TP (C) No. 692 of 2015
25. One of the questions that has been raised for determination by this Court is whether the Bar Council of India is competent to prescribe an examination post-enrolment of an advocate as a condition of eligibility for his continuing to practice at the Bar?
26. An incidental question that arises is: whether pre-enrolment training in terms of the Bar Council Training Rules, 1995 framed under Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is within the competence of the Bar Council of India and whether the decision of this Court in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India (1999) 3 SCC 176 holding pre-enrolment training to be beyond the competence of the Bar Council needs reconsideration. On the same analogy arises yet another question whether a pre-enrolment examination can be prescribed by the Bar Council of India as a condition precedent for enrolment under the Advocates Act.
27. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length including Mr K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel who has assisted us as an Amicus Curiae we are of the view that the questions that fall for determination are of considerable importance affecting the legal profession in general and need to be authoritatively answered by a Constitution Bench of this Court. We accordingly refer this matter to a five-Judge Bench for consideration and determination of the following three questions:
27.1. (i) Whether pre-enrolment training in terms of the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 framed under Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 could be validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India and if so whether the decision of this Court in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India (1999) 3 SCC 176 requires reconsideration?
27.2. (ii) Whether a pre-enrolment examination can be prescribed by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961?
27.3. (iii) In case Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative whether a post-enrolment examination can be validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India in terms of Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the parties shall now furnish additional sets of paper books within four weeks. The papers shall be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench?
28. We request Mr K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel to continue to render his valuable assistance to the Court when the matter comes up for hearing before the Constitution Bench of five Hon'ble Judges.