BCI Examining Proposal That Senior Advocates Should Compulsorily Induct 5 Newly Enrolled Advocates

On 15.03.2022, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh had made suggestions pertaining to the quality of legal education; shortcomings of the Bar Examination; developing a system for juniors to find placement in chambers. Senior Advocate, Mr. S.N. Bhat appearing on behalf of BCI had sought time to take instructions and file an affidavit in this regard.

The affidavit was filed by BCI through Advocate-on-Record Durga Dutt in a plea challenging the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which allowed persons with other employment, whether full time or part time to enrol as Advocates, without resigning from their jobs.

Enrolment for candidates pursuing employment

During the course of the hearing on 25.01.2022, the Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate, Mr. K.V. Viswanathan suggested that the candidates with a job can be issued a roll number to take the examination, but they can seek enrolment only thereafter.

"…Your lordship might think of a mechanism where they are not enrolled and given a certificate, but put on a register that qualifies them to write the exam and thereafter give them enrolment.

He also suggested that prior to enrolment, such candidates are to undergo a rigorous viva examination.

Considering the fundamental right to practice a profession, the Bench felt that there was a need to balance the requirement of the Bar Council that candidates resign from their current employment while seeking enrolment as Advocate even before taking the Bar Examination.

In its affidavit, BCI submitted that the same is under consideration. However, it pointed out that making the All India Bar Examination, a pre-enrolment examination, would be in the teeth of the judgment in V Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, wherein the Apex Court held that a law degree from a recognised University along with fulfilment of other statutory stipulations as enumerated in the Advocate Act and State Bar Council and BCI rules were adequate for the purposes of enrolment and no other pre-qualification could be imposed.

There exists a High Power Monitoring Committee to oversee AIBE

It was asserted that there already exists a High Power Monitoring Committee chaired by a former Supreme Court Judge to oversee AIBE and efforts are being undertaken to make the screening process more stringent to improve the quality of lawyers entering the legal profession. BCI highlighted that for AIBE 16 held in 2021 only bare acts without comments were permitted and in the future it would enforce tougher testing parameters. There is another High Level Committee comprising Senior Advocate and former judges of the Supreme Court/High Courts to look into the issues.

Placement of newly enrolled Advocates

The BCI is to constitute a High Power Committee to check the validity of compulsory chamber placement with senior Advocates or Advocates having 25 years of standing at the Bar for young law graduates or to devise a fair system for juniors to find placement in chambers. Once approved, the BCI would request these Advocates to engage at least 5 such juniors in their chambers.

BCI also intends to frame Rules whereby the young lawyers would be required to take an online objective test. On the basis of the result of such test, the meritorious junior law graduates would be placed in the chambers of Senior Advocates or Advocates having 25 years of standing at the Bar. Other graduates will get placed under Advocates having 15-20 years of experience.

State Level Entrance Test for admission to law colleges

BCI also expressed that it was eager to explore a system wherein the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India and Advocacy Board would introduce a State Level Entrance Test for admission to Law Colleges. It assured that the concerned authorities would take up the issue in its next meeting.

About 500 Institutions earmarked as sub-standard

The BCI stated that about 500 Institutions have been identified as sub-standard and a team of former Judges, Senior Advocates and noted academicians plan to conduct surprise visits. In case these Institutions are found to have inadequate facilities or infrastructure, then steps would be taken to withdraw the approval granted for running courses of Legal Education to such Universities.

Difficulties faced by BCI as a regulatory body

The difficulties faced by BCI in regulating Legal Education was enumerated as under -

1. Implementation of the rules made by BCI lies with the Universities;
2. Improvement in the LL.M. Degree required to improve quality of faculties;
3. Degree is granted by the University and the appointments are made by them or the State Government;
4. The BCI cannot determine the merit of professors appointed as the same is assessed only by the Universities;
5. Earlier, the BCI had no role to play in the higher legal education;
6. BCI intends to scrap the 1 year LL.M which has proved to be only an ornamental degree;
7. State Governments have not filled up several positions which are lying vacant for the last 15-20 years.

Scrap 1 year LL.M Programme

The BCI pointed out that only a few universities show interest in research work in the field of legal education. Moreover, UGC does not extend adequate financial assistance to the Centre of Legal Education ("CLE") for this purpose. For the said reason, students go abroad for higher legal education, eventually creating a dearth of qualified professors in the country. Therefore, BCI seeks to implement a two years LL.M. programme instead of the prevailing 1 year programme. To discuss this issue, the BCI had convened a meeting with the VCs of law colleges on 07.03.2021. A resolution was taken that one year LL.M shall be allowed for professional purposes but not for teaching. A one year LL.M degree holder would be required to undertake 6 months' law teachers training for being eligible to teach LL.B. courses.

In other jurisdictions -

• Australia - Australia has decided to implement a 2 years LL.M course.
• USA - The under-graduate course is for 4 years. Then the student is required to undertake a 3 years' law degree. Thereafter, the Masters' degree is for one year.
• UK - The LL.B course is for 3 years, but the LL.B degree holder is not permitted to join the legal profession. They have to undergo 2 years of training under a solicitor or law firm and then pass a Bar examination. The LL.M is for one year. But, if the LL.M holders intend to teach, they have to undergo a minimum 3 years law teaching course before joining as an Assistant Teacher.

Set Up a Teachers Training Academy and start an Advocate Professional Skill Development Programme

BCI submitted that it intends to establish a Teachers Training Academy in Bhubaneswar wherein candidates would be trained by Supreme Court Judges, High Court Judges, noted academicians and jurists. It looks forward to starting an Advocate Professional Skill Development Programme. The BCI emphasised that it has also constituted an Advisory Board for development of legal education.

Prevent Mushrooming of Colleges

In 2015, the BCI had already requested the State Governments and respective Universities to restrict the number of colleges being granted affiliation for the coming three years. Again in 2019, a moratorium was imposed on opening of new colleges for a period of three years. It was challenged and the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the resolution as violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In view of the same, the BCI was forced to lift the moratorium.

Reasons for slow progress in the improvement in standards of legal education

BCI had identified the reasons for slow progress in the improvement of the standards of legal education as under -

1. Paucity of good quality law teachers;
2. Some CLEs manipulate attendance record to project false attendance given the BCI requires minimum attendance of 70% classes for permitting students to appear in the examinations;
3. BCI has no role in the admission and examinations carried out by the colleges;
4. Use of unfair means by students;
5. Teachers are preoccupied with other activities, like visiting foreign institutes to teach, for seminars, participating in TV debates etc.

[Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangonkar And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 816-817 of 2022]