1 Year LLM | Why Should BCI Interfere In Academic Matters? Supreme Court Seeks Views Of Union & UGC

The Supreme Court today called on the Union of India and the University Grants Commission to submit their response on issues including the Bar Council of India's power to regulate academic affairs of law universities.

"on consideration of the issues involved and other allied issues with respect to powers of the BCI to regulate the academic affairs of law universities/schools/institutes, we would like to have the opinion of the Union of India and UGC. We therefore request the Attorney General for India to assist the Court on the next date of hearing. We also direct the UGC to submit its viewpoint. We also direct the Union of India to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit expressing its specific stand on the issues that arise for consideration", ordered the Court.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with pleas challenging Bar Council of India's decision (later rescinded) to scrap one-year LL.M. programme and derecognize foreign LL.M. degrees.

Earlier, the Court had suggested that a meeting of all stakeholders be convened to work towards resolution of issues - including the requirement of 1 year teaching experience for 1-year LL.M. degree holders in order for their LL.M. to be recognized.

Today, Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha (for BCI) informed that a meeting was convened, wherein divergent views were presented by different stakeholders. However, it has been resolved that an Expert Committee headed by a former Chief Justice of India be constituted.

In response, Justice Kant questioned why BCI was interfering with academic affairs of law schools instead of focusing on the lawyer community. 

"Why are you interfering with academic affairs? BCI is having this responsibility in what terms that you will decide the curriculum of law colleges/universities? Some academic expert body should take care of these things...This country has a very big class of lawyers...you have to regulate them, have activities all over...you continue that. You have an onerous statutory responsibility of updating their knowledge, organizing training programmes...(for that purpose) you can engage yourself with good law universities for imparting knowledge, court conduct, citing of case law, art of drafting...and this entire aspect should be left to academicians", said Justice Kant to Tankha.

When Tankha submitted that the power to regulate such affairs has been given to BCI under certain Rules, the judge noted that Rules are subordinate legislation and the system has been imposed by BCI itself over time. It was further commented that BCI is raising claims as if it is the only authority/stakeholder in the country to look after the system.

"In legal education, judiciary is a very big stakeholder. At grassroot level, we get judicial officers who are plucked out of these law colleges. I personally feel judiciary is a very big stakeholder - what kind of officers are we getting, are they properly sensitized, do they have compassion, do they understand plight of common man, or they come from law universities having all these foreign ideas/concepts and go there try to deal with mechanical judgments? All these issues are something where we are also concerned. Academicians will be equally concerned...Lakhs of lawyers, manning their day-to-day affairs, particularly when you are opening to world competition...that's where you should concentrate, instead of going for inspection of law colleges", Justice Kant expressed.

Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi (for Association of National Law Schools), on the other hand, submitted that there is no objection to a Committee making recommendations. However, whenever the recommendations come, the BCI should look at them carefully and "consider not in a spirit where they have to cede some power with some power". The senior counsel further submitted that by the impugned notification, which is a lower level delegated legislation, the BCI seeks to assume control not only over 1-yr LL.Ms. but also all PhDs, Diplomas and Post-Doctorates, which are specifically governed by UGC.

On this, Justice Kant said, "LL.M. has nothing to do with profession. As an apex body, BCI can lay down broad guidelines that what should be part of curriculum of law degree...leaving it then for those who are supposed to translate it into ground reality...".

At this point, Tankha contended that for 1-yr LLM-holders, BCI is only asking that they put in some experience as teacher to get the degree accepted. But that is not agreeable to the petitioners. Again questioning BCI's authority to interfere in this regard, Justice Kant remarked,

"Does Medical Council of India prescribe what should be the qualification in MD or super- specialization? Never ever. It's not their domain. The Architecture Association of India would prescribe? Never. Why are you carrying others' burden?...Indian students are obtaining medical degrees from world over...some kind of regulatory body is required...nothing wrong in having an expert body but that should be something like...probably it's not the Medical Council of India who alone does it, there are other institutes...UGC is there...We would like to take this to logical conclusion."

Ultimately, seeking the response of the Union and UGC, the Court adjourned the matter.

Background

Briefly put, two petitions were filed before the Court challenging inter-alia BCI's decision to scrap the 1-year LL.M. programme: one by law student-Tamanna Chandan Chanchlani (in January, 2021) and another by Consortium of National Law Universities (in February, 2021).

Among the many contentions raised, one was that the Advocates Act, 1961, gives power to BCI only to regulate legal education insofar as it relates to qualifications for enrollment for practice of law and LLM is not a qualification for enrollment.

In March, 2021, BCI undertook before the Court that the Rules abolishing 1-Year LL.M. programme viz. Bar Council of Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020, would not be implemented in 2021.

Subsequently, certain circulars/notifications were issued which narrowed the scope of the controversy, but necessitated teaching experience of 1 year for 1 year LL.M. degree holders in order for their degree to be recognized.

Advocate Rahul Shyam Bhandari represented the lead petitioner Tamanna Chandan Chachlani, who is aggrieved by the condition that her foreign LLM won't be valid in India unless she completes one year teaching program in India.

Case Title: TAMANNA CHANDAN CHACHLANI VERSUS BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS., Writ Petition(C) No. 70/2021 (and connected case) 

Click Here To Read/Download Order