Delhi University’s Degree in Law – Whether Legal and Valid?

Under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India (BCI), a statutory body, created under the Advocates Act, 1961, is empowered to promote ‘legal education’, fundamental to the very foundation of the Judicial system, and lay down ‘standards’ of such education in consultation with the Universities imparting such education. Up till 1975, the Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees in Law for Admission as Advocates, as formulated by the BCI were in force. Rule 3, Section –B, Part IV of the said rules relating to attendance in LL.B. Course provided as under:-

“Rule 3 –

"The students shall be required to put in a minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures on each of the subjects as also at tutorials, moot courts and practical training course.

Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law and the Principal of law colleges may condone attendance short of those required by the Rule, if the student had attendance 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester or examination as the case may be."

On 1/3/2003, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its verdict dated 1.3.2003 delivered in a Public Interest Litigation petition bearing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6784 of 2002 titled as  “S.N.Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors’, reported as [106(2003) DLJ 329] directed the University of Delhi (DU) to carry out suitable amendments in its rules so as to bring them in conformity with the Legal Education Rules formulated by the Bar Council of India. The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:- 

“22.     Since the Bar Council of India recognises the LL.B. Degree Course of the University of Delhi and the Bar Council of India is a statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act 1961, and is empowered to lay down standards of legal education, University of Delhi would be required to bring its rules in conformity with the rules of the Bar Council of India.

23.       The respondent No. 1 is thus issued a direction to amend its examination and promotion Rules in the matter pertaining to attendance to bring them in conformity with the corresponding rules framed by the Bar Council of India.”

But despite the said directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the DU did not carry out the required amendments in all of its corresponding rules so as to bring them in conformity with the then Legal Education Rules, 1975, and only amended clause 2(8)(a) of the ordinance 7 of its calendar and did not amended clause 2(8)(b) or 2(9)(a),(b),(c) and (d) of the said ordinance which created an apparent inconsistency in the language of the attendance rules. The amended rule 2(8) provides as under:-

“2(8)(a) The students shall be required to put in minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures on each of the subjects as also at the moot courts and practical training course.

Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law/ Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre may condone attendance short of those required by this Rule, if the student had attended 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester examinations.

Provided further that no person shall be deemed to have satisfied the required conditions in respect of his instructions unless, in addition to the requirement regarding attendance and other conditions, he has appeared and satisfied by his performance the Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre in such test, written and/or oral, as may be held by him in his discretion.

The Professor-in-Charge shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, the power to detain a student in the same class in which he has been studying, or not to send him up for the University Examination, in case he did not appear at the tests aforesaid or his performance was not satisfactory.

The Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre shall have power to strike off the name of a student who is grossly irregular in attendance inspite of warning, or, when the absence of the student is for such a long period that he cannot put in requisite percentage of attendance.’’

On 20.4.2007, a Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in para no. 12 of his verdict delivered in writ Petition (Civil) no. 18051 of 2006  titled as ‘Smt. Deepti Vs. Vice-Chancellor, University of Delhi’ highlighted the said apparent inconsistency and confusion in the language of the attendance rules. The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:- 

"11.     The main difference between the amended and un- amended provision is that while the un-amended provision pertained to the number of lectures delivered in a year, after amendment the provision relates to the number of lectures in each of the subjects and has reference, in the proviso, to the aggregate of lectures for the "semester examination". Thus, the Ordinance, by virtue of the said amendment, was sought to be brought in line with the provisions of Clause 3 of Section B of Part IV (Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees in Law for admission as Advocates) of the Bar Council of India Rules. The implication of this amendment is that rather than requiring an average of 66% attendance in the year, students preparing for the LL.B. Degree must attend 66% lectures in each subject in order to be eligible to sit for semester examinations.

12.       Unfortunately, somewhat of a dilemma has emerged. Although the University amended clause 2 (8) (a) of the Ordinance VII to be consistent with The Bar Council of India Rules, it did not bring about any change in Clause 2(8) (b) or 2 (9) (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the said Ordinance. This has created an apparent inconsistency in the language of the attendance rules. It seems that although amended clause 2 (8) (a) requires calculation of attendance on a subject-wise semester-wise basis, Clause 2 (8) (b) (albeit pertaining to the LL.M. Programme) and Clause 2 (9) (which refers to all courses in general and is not limited to the courses offered by the Law Faculty) continue to refer to attendance calculated on a yearly basis. There is no doubt that the piecemeal amendment brought about by the University in the Ordinance has introduced a certain degree of confusion."

In the year 2008, the BCI, in consultation with Universities and State Bar Councils, formulated, approved and adopted new Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (‘ROLE, 2008’), vide its resolution bearing no. 110 of 14/9/2008. Rule-12 contained in Chapter-II of the said Rules provides as under:-

"Rule 12 - End Semester Test

No student of any of the degree program shall be allowed to take the end semester test in a subject if the student concerned has not attended minimum of 70% of the classes held in the subject concerned as also the moot court room exercises, tutorials and practical training conducted in the subject taken together.

Provided that if a student for any exceptional reasons fail to attend 70% of the classes held in any subject, the Dean of the University or  the  Principal of the Centre of Legal Education, as the case may be, may allow the student to take the test if the student concerned attended at least 65% of the classes held in the subject concerned and attended 70% of classes in all the subjects taken together.

The similar power shall rest with the Vice-Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorized representative in the absence of the Dean of Law.

Provided further that a list of such students allowed to take the test with reasons recorded be forwarded to the Bar Council of India."

On 25.06.2010, the BCI gave the following public notice:-

“Law schools required to report compliance with Legal Education Rules                        by July 15

The Bar Council of India has announced that all law schools and colleges need to report compliance with the Legal Education Rules, 2008. This was in accordance with the decision of the Legal Education Committee on April 30, 2010 each law school/college is required to report compliance with Legal Education Rules, 2008.

The deadline for the submission of the same is 5 PM, July 15, 2010. The same may be emailed to .”

On 30.07.2012, the BCI gave another public notice, which is as under:- 

“The law colleges which have not applied for extension of approval of affiliation of Bar council of India

It is notified for the public that Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India in its meeting dated 30.04.2010 had decided that all the Centres of Legal Education (irrespective of their deemed or permanent status) will have to conform to the Legal Education Rules – 2008 and it was also decided that a law college/law school/ institution, which has not been inspected for a continuous period of 5 years, shall have to apply afresh to the Bar Council of India and shall have to seek approval of affiliation on or before 31st July, 2010 itself. In spite of this, it appears that while 80% of such deemed universities have already applied afresh and most of them have got fresh approval as per Rules of Legal Education – 2008. But it appears that due to mistake or otherwise, some of the Institutions (List enclosed) have not yet applied for approval under Legal Education Rules – 2008. It is made clear that without getting approval under new Rules of Legal Education – 2008, it is quite illegal to impart legal education leading to degree in law. In view of the above, it is made clear that the students passed out from such colleges/universities having no approval under Rules of Legal             Education – 2008 will not be eligible to be enrolled as an advocate in the State Bar Councils and would not be entitled to practice in courts.

All concerned are advised to see enclosed list of colleges/universities having deemed/so called permanent status which have not applied for the fresh approval in terms of Rules of Legal Education – 2008. The students are, therefore, advised not to take admission in such colleges/universities, who have not got fresh approval under Legal Education Rules – 2008 of Bar Council of India.”

But most of the law colleges/law schools/universities did not apply and obtain the requisite fresh approval of affiliation under the ROLE, 2008, from the BCI and continued to impart legal education and award decree in law illegally. Even the University of Delhi did not apply and obtain the fresh approval of affiliation under the said ROLE, 2008. The existing rules of the University of Delhi as contained in its “Bulletin of Information” 2013-14, pertaining to attendance, are as under:-  

‘Attendance Rules’

“All the students of LL.B shall have to put in minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures in each of the subjects as also at the moot courts and practical programme.

Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean, the faculty of law/Professor-in-charge of the law Centre concerned may condone attendance short of those required by this rule, if the student had attended 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester examination.

The professor-in-charge of the Law Centre shall have power to strike off the name of a student who is grossly irregular in attendance inspite of waning, or, when the absence of student is for such a long period that he cannot put in requisite percentage of attendance.”  

On a plain reading of the above attendance rule, it is evident that the same is apparently inconsistent with and violative of the ROLE, 2008. Even after a lapse of around five years of the formulation and approval and adoption of the said rules, the DU is continuing to allow the law students to take examination with 66% attendance in aggregate and to issue them the degree in law inspite of the fact that as per rule 12, end-semester test of the said rules a law student cannot be allowed to take examination in a subject unless he puts in 70% attendance in that subject.

In the above backdrop of the facts, it is not clear as to whether or not the DU has applied and obtained fresh approval of affiliation under the ROLE, 2008, from the BCI. If the DU has so far not obtained the requisite approval of affiliation afresh from the BCI under the ROLE, 2008, then according to the aforesaid public notice dated 30.07.2012 given by the BCI, is it legal for the DU to impart legal education leading to degree in law and whether the students who have passed out from the DU having no approval under ROLE, 2008, will be eligible to be enrolled as an advocate with the concerned State Bar Council and would be entitled to practice in the courts of law?

Further, a bare reading of the aforesaid rule, it is explicit that a law student can be detained from taking the end-semester examination only in a subject in which he fails to put in 70% attendance. If a student put in 70% attendance even in one subject and fails to put in the requisite % of attendance in other subjects out of the total subjects then as per the aforesaid rule such a student could only be detained from taking the end-semester examination only in those subjects in which he has failed to put in 70% attendance.

In November, 2013, like every year, certain students of First Semester of LL.B three years degree course have been detained by Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, from taking the entire end-semester examination for the first semester (held from 30/11/2013 to 16/12/2013) on account of shortage of attendance and thereby refused to issue admit cards to these students. Resultantly these students could not take the end-semester examination for the first semester. Now these students are being represented by the Faculty of Law that as there is no provision for re-admission to the said course for the students who have been detained from taking the end-semester examination on account of shortage of attendance under the existing university rules, therefore, their admission stands cancelled and consequently, they will have to again appear in the entrance test to be held in June, 2014, if they intend to seek fresh admission in the said course. As per the Dean as well as the Professor-in-Charge of the three Law Centers of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, these students have been detained from taking the entire end-semester examination because of the reason that they failed to put in 66% attendance in aggregate in the first semester. However, students who have put in 66% attendance in aggregate have been issued admit cards. 

During the entire session for the first semester, these students were not given any written warring informing them that for appearing in the end-semester examination to be held in November-December-2013, they are required to put in 66% attendance; that they are running short of attendance and if in case they failed to make good the deficiency before the closure of the session, they may be detailed from taking the end-semester examination on account of shortage of attendance. It is germane to mention here that as per the circulars issued by the University of Delhi, all the colleges affiliated to it were directed to upload the status of attendance on the college website.

Kindly read the above article carefully and give your respective opinions in the interest of thousands of law students who have already passed out from the DU and have been awarded law degree; the students who are pursuing their law degree course and are being allowed to take end-semester examination with just 66% attendance instead of 70% and the students who intend to seek admission in the LL.B three years degree course in any of the three law centres under the DU.

Anil Kumar Yadav

Chairman

Disciplinary Committee

Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana