Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Delhi High Court is set to consider the extent of forces of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the means that can be taken by the BCI to guarantee that law universities hold the compulsory number of class hours as endorsed by it. The Court was hearing Petitions recorded by final year’s students of the B.A. LLB (Hons.) course at Amity Law School, Delhi, which is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. The students had been detained because of their short attendence. They said that they were not able to meet the required attendance on the grounds that the College had not held the required number of classes as said by the University and the BCI. The students had made representations to the University too, which had then constituted an Expert Committee to investigate the claims and objections raised by the students. This Committee had discovered that the College had, finished the classes seven days before the due date determined by the University. It had hence inter alia guided the University to sort out special classes for seven days. These proposals were, be that as it may, not executed by the College, driving the students to approach the High Court. Notwithstanding the previously mentioned conflicts, the Petitioners had now brought up that Rule 10 of the BCI Rules makes it obligatory for universities to hold no less than 648 hours of classes over a time of 18 weeks, amid a semester of the double degree incorporated course. They at that point charged that as opposed to this, their school had just led 151 hours of classes over a sum of 69 working days. The College, then again, had declared that it had not executed the Committee's proposals in perspective of BCI's perception that the recommendation was violative of Rule 12 of the Rules, as it stipulates that the students should meet the endorsed participation criteria preceding their end-semester examinations and not after, just like the case before them. The Court, nonetheless, rejected this contention, opining that BCI's perception was not in compliance with the principle of natural justice, as it had not heard the University before touching base at this conclusion. It at that point held that the Petitioner's do have an at first sight case, and decided that the College had vacillated in holding the base number of classes. It, in this way, guided the College to actualize the Committee's proposals and lead 7 days of additional classes/instructional exercises for each one of those students who wish to go to them and compensate for the shortage in their participation. Moreover, the Court alluded to different points of reference to underscore on the “moral and legal obligation on the centers of legal education to abide by the mandate of the BCI Rules to hold the prescribed number of class hours for its students”.
The Court additionally noticed that few universities were "explicitly overlooking" the rules recommending a base number of classes to be directed. It at that point set out the three issues as said previously, and recorded the Petition on 9 July.
86540
103860
630
114
59824