BCI Earmarked 500 Law Colleges As 'Sub-Standard'; Those Found Lacking During Surprise Inspections Will Be Closed: Law Ministry
The Bar Council of India has earmarked 500 Institutions throughout the country that are sub-standard and a team led by some former Judge(s)/Senior Advocate(s) and noted academicians plans to conduct surprise visits of such Institutions.If any Institution such is found to be below standard i.e., not having sufficient number of faculties/ infrastructure, then the Legal Education Committee of...
The Bar Council of India has earmarked 500 Institutions throughout the country that are sub-standard and a team led by some former Judge(s)/Senior Advocate(s) and noted academicians plans to conduct surprise visits of such Institutions.
If any Institution such is found to be below standard i.e., not having sufficient number of faculties/ infrastructure, then the Legal Education Committee of BCI shall take immediate step to close such Institutions.
The aforesaid information has been provided by the Ministry of Law and Justice in response to a written query made by MPs M. Shanmugam and Y.S. Chowdary in the Rajya Sabha, asking whether BCI, being the apex regulatory body, is taking measures to tighten yardstick in examinations, exercise stringent control at the entry level and monitor law colleges for compliance.
The Law Minister also stated that with respect to the specific observations made by the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India vs. Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar & Ors., Bar Council of India has constituted a High Level Committee including many senior Advocates and some former Judges of Supreme Court/High Courts to look into the above said issues.
Notably, the Supreme Court, on 15.03.2022, heard the submissions made by the Counsels in the plea challenging the judgment of the Gujarat High Court,, which allowed persons with other employment, whether full time or part time to enroll as Advocates, without resigning from their jobs. The Supreme Court granted time to BCI's counsel Sr. Adv. S.N. Bhatt to take instructions on the following:
Enrollment For Candidates Who Are Pursuing Employment
The Bench stated that the right to practice a profession which is a fundamental right needs to be balanced with the requirement of the Bar Council that candidates resign from their current employment while seeking enrollment as Advocate even before taking the Bar Examination. It was deliberated upon that candidates with a job can be issued a roll number to take the examination and they can seek enrollment thereafter. It was suggested that the result of the Bar examination would be valid for three years within which period the candidate has to resign and enroll as an Advocate. In case they fail to enroll within these three years, they have to take up the Bar Examination again. The Amicus Curiae, Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan had suggested that viva examinations ought to be conducted for such candidates.
BCI To Ensure Better Accountability Of Law Colleges
The Bench suggested that the BCI should monitor the law colleges in a stringent manner so as to ensure that they maintain the parameters set out by the Council. Considering how the law institutions have multiplied over the years and given the dearth of requisite faculty, it felt it was the need of the hour to enhance the monitoring mechanism to achieve better accountability.
Bar Examination to test analytical skills and not ability to memorise information
It was recommended that the examination can be devised to test analytical skills and knowledge rather than the ability to memorise information. In order to enhance the quality of the examination the Bench thought that 0.25 negative marking for each wrong answer could be introduced by the BCI. It further added that assignment of negative marks can be introduced for a particular section rather than the whole paper.
Apart from the above, the Bench suggested BCI to evolve a fair system for juniors to find placement in chambers.
Click Here To Read The Unstarred Question And Answer