Ineligibility To Pursue 3-Yr LLB Course Was Raised After Graduation: Plea In Bombay HC Challenges State Bar Council's Denial Of Enrolment

A petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court against the Bar Council of Maharashtra's decision to deny sanad/enrolment to a law graduate who completed a 3-year LLB on the ground that her aggregate marks in bachelor's degree prior to LLB were less than 45% aggregate marks.The Bar Council of Maharashtra denied the petitioner's enrolment in view of Rule 7 of the Rules of Legal Education, which states that the Bar Council of India may stipulate that a candidate must have a minimum 45% of aggregate marks for the degree course to become eligible for 3 year law course. The petitioner's grievance is that after completing the 3-year LLB, she cannot be debarred from the issuance of Sanad. The petitioner completed Bachelor of Commerce and received 43.80% marks. The petitioner wrote an entrance exam for admission to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj University (respondent no.2), a private university. She received admission to the university and completed its 3-year law degree. After completion of her law degree, the petitioner applied to the Bar Council of Maharashtra (respondent no.1) for issuance of Sanad/Enrolment. The Bar Council directed it to give a conversion certificate i.e, a certificate showing the aggregate marks of his B.Com degree. As the petitioner had given the conversion certificate form to the university during the verification process, she sent an email to the university requesting for the said certificate. However, the university did not issue the certificate and instead set up a committee and proposed the petitioner to choose an alternative college and complete the law degree again. It is stated in the petition that the university was willing to refund the entire fees to the petitioner. The petition futher states that as per a letter written by the Bar Council of Maharashtra to the respondent-university, the former asked the latter on what basis the petitioner was admitted to the law course, so that the enrolment committee may consider her application. The letter made reference to Rule 7 of the Rules of Legal Education. The petitioner was informed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra that she was ineligible for ennoblement in view of the said rules and that her eligibility would only be considered after an explanation from the university. The petition states that the act of respondnets in not issuing the Sanad is a “classic case of abuse of process of law,non application of mind and utmost perversity.”It is stated that had the university informed that she was ineligible for admission due to not receiving the 45% aggregate marks in B.Com course, she would not have taken admission and completed 3 years of law degree at the university. It is stated that despite having knowledge of the academic records of the petitioner, the university allowed her to take admission and even certified that she passed the 3 year LLB degree. The petitioner argues that it was the duty of the univeristy at the time of document verification to ascertain the eligibility of the petitioner. However, it did not raise any objections regardsing her elibiglibty for the entire tenure of 3 years. The petitioner contends that obtaining 45% aggregate marks was not the criteria prescribed when the petitioner took admission.The petition states that once the Bar Council of Maharashtra recognised the respondent-university, it was the its duty to supervise and govern the admission process of the university for effective implementation of Rules of Legal Education. It is stated that had the Bar Council of Maharashtra supervised the admission process and found the non-compliance of Rule 7, she would not have faced this difficulty. The petitioner thus prays the Court to direct the Bar Council of Maharashtra to process her enrolment application and enrol her as an advocate. A division bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil heard the matter and issued notice to the respondents. It kept the matter for hearing on 13 January 2025. Case title: Siddhi Jitendra Shinde vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa and Ors. (Writ Petition No.17962 of 2024)

Ineligibility To Pursue 3-Yr LLB Course Was Raised After Graduation: Plea In Bombay HC Challenges State Bar Council's Denial Of Enrolment

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags