Cover Story

Challenge against Maharashtra LAW CET: SC issues notice to State and BCI

LiveLaw News Network
29 Aug 2016 2:07 PM GMT
Challenge against Maharashtra LAW CET: SC issues notice to State and BCI
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

A Division bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and RK Agrawal Today has issued notices to the Maharashtra Government and the Bar Council of India in a Special Leave Petition filed against the Bombay High Court judgment dismissing the writ petitions challenging the introduction of CET for undergraduate courses in law.

It is argued that the counseling is yet to be held because approximately 40 colleges don't have the recognition from BCI and admissions are likely to be delayed till October first week. According to the Petitioners “Very few students have managed to obtain more than 35% score in CET, thus in order to fill in the seats cut off has been reduced to 0%’.In these circumstances, it is prayed before the Court to allow the admissions to be made on class 12th marks by individual colleges for the year 2016-17.

The Bombay High Court while dismissing the petitions had expressed its dissatisfaction with regards to the mode and manner of the conduct of the CET stating that-

“True it is that it would have been ideal if the Rules were made promptly and the requirement of the Statute fulfilled. True it is that even the Notifications ought to be promulgated and issued much prior to the examinations. True it is that even this Court would have been happy to note that the syllabus was made and notified to the students well in advance.However, merely because all this has not been done in the manner suggested by the petitioners does not mean that the exercise as undertaken by the State is unlawful or unconstitutional.”

The court also expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that the Bar Council of India, the national regulator for legal education, was not consulted in the entire process. As was also the case with the state bar council, and the Law and Judiciary department.

“The involvement of the Bar Council may have improved the standards. Those teaching the theory of law and those actually practicing it, if consulted, could have brought about a blend which the State ought to welcome. It is no use consulting some teachers and Principals and then finalizing the process, that too hurriedly.”

Advocates Pradnya Talekar, and Atul Dakh appeared for the petitioners.

Next Story