The Supreme Court has granted three more days to the Bar Council of India (BCI) for completing the summoning process in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) transfer petition case today in its repeated attempt to get the regulator to clear procedural hurdles for a merit-based adjudication.
The Supreme Court registrar gave the BCI a deadline of 28 October because it was delaying matters, after which the registrar would send the matter to the court for further directions recounted law graduate and petitioner Fatehpal Singh who was present in the court.
The deadline for registering for the AIBE is 30 October, with the exam scheduled to be held on 5 December.
The matter has been stalled ever since the writ petitions challenging the bar exam were clubbed together and admitted in the Supreme Court for the first time in August. Last week the Supreme Court registrar postponed the hearing until today for the BCI to serve notice on all parties in the transfer petition, following another postponement for the same reasons on 6 September.
Even until now many petitioners have not been served notices despite the SC registry’s orders to issue Dasti (hand-deliver), e-mail and telephone notices.
Singh told Legally India that the registrar took note of the fact that many co-petitioners who could not be informed about the proceedings would be prejudiced if any discussions on the core issue were held in their absence. Singh noted that in light of the differing grounds and relief sought in most petitions, it would be legally impermissible for the court to proceed without giving a fair chance of hearing to all.
At least 10 writ petitions were filed in various High Courts throughout the country between June and July 2010.
The BCI’s counsel was unavailable for comment at the time of publication.
Photo by comedynose
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
BCI is already win the case. They teach 2009-10 batch that how to be a good advocate. !!!
Beware of those opposing the bar exam and their false campaign against Rainmaker.
Enough is enough..Now more intense actions needed.
Mass petitions required to remove the Chairman and the persons who are just playing with the lives and careers of innocent new advocates in the name upgrading the legal system.
What is the justification of paying Rs. 1300 for an exam where no marks or ranks will be given and that is after paying the enrollment fee to BCI ?
How they engaged a fictitious entity called Rainmaker that is also not clear.
BCI do not even bother to supply study matertials as promised even before 30 days of examination date.
Who will pay for examination centre travel fare and associated cost involving examination ?
After that in hearing before Court they will say everything is complete now thousands enrolled for the examination,so how it is possible to postpone the examination of 5th december.
People with power like BCI Chairman are ruining our country.
This site only deals with students & their concerns.
So shut up and move elsewhere to promote Rainmaker.
There are many business promotion sites available.
You may also launch a site if you have money to spend.
There is no harm making money.
Who have innovative idea deserves to be rich.
21,ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
NEW DELHI - 110 002
AND NOT AT
OKHLA IND. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110020
Where we can post different media house links and communicate with each other.
Action starts now...
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAH
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL.) NO(s). 697-702 OF 2010
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BABUBHAI VAGHELA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for stay)
Date: 20/10/2010 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr Dattatrey Vyas,ADv.
Mr.Chirag M.Shroff,Adv.
Mr. A.Venayagam Balan ,Adv
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Mr Fatehpal Singh is appearing in person, as respondent
No.4 in TP(C) No. 702/2010.
As per office report, service is complete in TP(C) Nos.
698 and 700 of 2010.
Parties in such transfer petitions may mention before the
Hon'ble Court for early listing.
In rest of the transfer petitions, as last chance,
petitioner has to confirm service by appropriate mode on or
before 25.10.2010, considering the fact that last date for
registration of exam is 30.10.2010.
(S.G.SHAH)
Registrar
this was the order on 25.10.2010
ITEM NO.10 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XVIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAH
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL.) NO(s). 697-702 OF 2010
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BABUBHAI VAGHELA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for stay)
Date: 25/10/2010 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr Dattatrey Vyas, Adv.
Mr.Chirag M.Shroff,Adv.
Mr. A.Venayagam Balan ,Adv
Mr Fatehpal Sing(in-person).
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Some of the respondents are served and they are
pressing to list the matter before the Hon'ble Court stating
that the last date for registration of exam is 30.10.2010.
However, this Court has no jurisdiction to order to
list the matter before the Hon'ble Court without confirmation
of service and without completing the pleadings, as per rules.
In view of such limitation, I have no option but to
order that petitioner has to file proof of service on or
before 28.10.2010.
If nothing is filed on record, matter may be listed
before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for non--prosecution at
the earliest.
(S.G.SHAH)
Registrar
Clearly, the Registrar has not posted it before the Court in default, as he admits he has no power to do so without service being complete. It is to come before the Chamber Judge, who is a Judge sitting single, and who decides on whether proper procedure has been adopted. It is selective and deliberate misinformation to say that it is coming before the Court. Please do not allow students to be misled. They need to know that merely because they register for the exam does not in any way prejudice the rights they have before the Court. Anybody trying to create a fear psychosis by exploiting them is doing a great disservice.
What BCI is doing ?
Shameless [...] are in-charge of BCI now.
In-laws may not be always in Laws :-)
We know many rainmaker brokers are here writing blogs.
Don't do anything that drives us away.
I don't see how the story would have 'misled' anyone, please do explain.
In respect of getting organised, if you wish you can use the existing features on the site by creating a thread on the forum, a group in the social network or by posting up a blog. We can not ourselves get involved with activism, however, so we remain impartial and do not mislead anyone in the news reporting.
Best regards
Kian
1. The Registrar said NOTHING about "delaying matters" by the BCI.
2. The Registrar would NOT "send the matter to the court for further directions".
Hence, MISLEADING. In fact, FALSE.
Read the Order, boys. "However, this Court has no jurisdiction to order to list the matter before the Hon'ble Court without confirmation of service and without completing the pleadings, as per rules."
You guys make Times of India look good.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first