Students Have No Locus To File Plea For Affiliation Of A College: Madhya Pradesh HC Expresses Surprise At Law College Not Wanting Recognition

While hearing a plea regarding grant of recognition of a college, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday (December 13) orally remarked that students had "no locus" to seek affiliation of a college expressing its "surprise" as to why the college was not present before the court seeking recognition.

On the last date of hearing i.e. November 13, the counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (Bar Council of India) and Respondent No. 2 (M.P. State Bar Council) had prayed for time to file reply as a last indulgence.

When the matter was listed on Friday before a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf the counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India prayed for time to file reply in this case.

To this, the Court orally said, “Last time also it was the same position.” The counsel however said that, “They said it would be placed before the committee and the result would then be placed before the chairman.”

The court inquired about the date on which the meeting of the Legal Education Committee (LEC) of BCI will be held and whether it has already taken place.

To this the counsel replied, “I have not been informed further about what has happened. I will find it out soon.”

Meanwhile the petitioner's counsel objecting to the time sought by BCI to file response submitted,“We have an objection in this. Since the last three months, the respondent has been taking time.”

The high court however orally said, “First and foremost, students have no locus to seek affiliation of a college.”

The counsel replied, “That is true.”

“If that is true then what remains? Why did you take admission in a college which had no recognition?," the court orally asked. The petitioner's counsel said that it was a government college and the student were not at fault.

The court said, “Bar council on its list displays the recognized college. It can't display on its list unrecognized colleges.” However the petitioner's counsel said that on Bar Council's website since 2012, the list has not been updated.

The court thereafter dictated its order, “Counsel appearing for Bar Council of India submits that the issue of recognition of the subject college was placed before the Legal Education Committee (LEC) of the Bar Council of India. He prays for some time to take instruction with regard to the decision taken by the Bar Council of India.”

At this stage, the counsel of petitioner said, “Lordship, the future of hundreds of students is at stake.” The court replied, “Yes, if they have taken a decision, you will get the benefit.”

The counsel for the petitioner asked for a date in the first week of January stating, “In the last order also BCI was given last indulgence. Neither their affidavit is on record…”

To this the court said, “Last time they wanted an affidavit, now they are saying it has been placed before the Legal Education Committee. Decision of the Legal Education Committee shall be produced before us.”

The petitioner's counsel however said that as per Bar Council of India rules within 50 days since the application of inspections, they have to take that decision.

The court thereafter orally asked, “Why is the college not before us? If there is a deficiency, supposing they have not paid the fee for inspection, who will pay the fee for inspection?”.

The petitioner's counsel said that the documents were available on record, and that the same had been annexed in the plea. The court thereafter orally said, “You see, it is very surprising that college does not want recognition.”

The petitioner's counsel however said that the students are also aggrieved by the inactions of the college, adding that the college had not told the students that the college is not affiliated with the Bar Council of India.

The court then orally remarked, “Go to the college, ask the management of the college to come forward. So, if there is a deficiency in the inspection, who will rectify it?...Then please prosecute the college”.

The petitioner's counsel said that they were not here for monetary damages, but were before the court "for the future of the students of the college”.

The court however orally said, “You see, they do not want recognition. You are insisting the college be recognized”. The petitioners submitted that the students had been studying there for three years.

At this stage the court orally remarked, “You may have studied for 100 years in an unrecognized college. You will not be enrolled. It does not make a difference. You should have checked from the website whether it is recognized or not.”

The counsel replied, “In the website, they have shown that their affiliation is still with the Bar Council of India". To this the court however said, “So, that is their mistake.”

The counsel however said, “And lordship, even the Bar Council of India does not say that the affiliation has been revoked.”

At this stage the court orally said, “You are using the internal documents of the college. These are the sponsored petitions.” The petitioner's counsel however said that it was not the case and that the "bar council may say that the affiliation was revoked”.

Questioning the petitioners' how they had access to internal documents the court orally said, “If it is not revoked, then why are you before us?...How these internal documents came in your possession? All these documents must have been provided by the college to you for filing this petition. And now you are insisting that the time should not be granted to the Bar Council of India. This is the process. The process will take time. The affiliation will be of the college. Then the second question will arise as to what will happen to the students those already studied during the period when there was no affiliation”.

At this stage the petitioners said that the inspection application was also on record. To this the court asked, "Who submitted it?" The petitioners counsel said that it was the college.

The court however orally remarked, "...You are submitting everything. You are not the college. It is for the college to take action.”

At this stage another counsel argued, “We are in the connected petition. I am appearing for bar council. I have oral instruction that it has been put up before the committee and there are some deficiencies in the application.”

The court orally said, “They are opposing to granting the time to the BCI.”

The counsel for BCI meanwhile said that the result will be placed on the internet and the colleges as well as state bar council will be informed about the same.

At this stage the petitioner's counsel said prayed that the state may also be directed to file their affidavit.

The court however said, “What will the affidavit do if the Bar Council says there is a deficiency? The college has to cure the deficiency. Let them (BCI) file a response, we will see.”

The matter is now listed on January 20, 2025.

Case Title: Ankit Shukla & Others Vs Bar Council Of India & Other

WP No. 26045 Of 2024