I understand people are outraged. But can someone really explain why ?

Don’t the BCI rules give the bar council power to make sure convicted criminals shouldn’t be lawyers ? Depending on nature of offence and whether a sentence has been served ? Shouldn’t law be one of those professions where a criminal record should disqualify you from at least representing other people ? Kind of like if you are a drug user maybe you shouldn’t be a doctor ? And if you’re a pedophile maybe we shouldn’t give you certification to be a school teacher ? Lawyers are officers of the court no ? How can the BCI allow people to register who might have criminal proceedings against them? The BCI is supposed to check for this anyway- they’re simply passing the work on to universities so they’re able to do it more efficiently. Exactly what is wrong with that ?

One of my friends studied in a fancy university abroad when her classmate was caught plagiarising a weekly assignment . The professor and the university were so offended they called all the state bar councils to make sure the plagiarist didn’t get a license. If they can set those standards for themselves why shouldn’t we ?

Biometric attendance and cctv - I mean no one is really going to check all this data to persecute people. This is something they’re doing in schools and board exams now to ensure that teachers are doing their job and no one is cheating.

If it’s political retribution and free speech once is worried about - it’s easy enough to record video without audio ?

It seems to me rooting out fraud in university legal education would fall within the bar councils purview no ? You already give your biometric to Aadhar and a whole host of other things. There’s barely any part of Bangalore or Bombay that’s not covered by cctv. School boards have used cctv to make sure there’s no cheating in examinations ( and it’s worked !). If we’re so upset and outraged by failing standards of legal education - why are we outraged when universities are asked by regulators to use updated technology to reduce fraud ?

Commenters here saying : oh BCI should start with non nlus where standards are terrible. They are ! That’s who these rules are meant for! Not NLUs where rates of fraud are relatively low anyway. But you cannot make rules for one uni and not another.

And oh BCI should do random spot checks - honestly that’s a really bad way to ensure we’re preventing fraud and a really good way to allow BCI guys to charge bribes for unseeing violations. That’s basically the system we have now and it doesn’t work. Maybe tech driven record keeping that is hard to fudge might actually bring some honesty back.

And those saying teaching faculty should have to clock in and out : yes. Why not ? Too many professors cancel classes for half of the term and barely teach for the other half. Maybe they need to worry that someone is looking over their shoulder a bit. Too many VCs don’t do their jobs- maybe a basic check on hours in office / on official business is actually not a bad idea. Maybe performance reviews aren’t a bad idea. VCs act like they’re kings without any accountability and spend their time in office looking for their next job or trying to pocket money. I don’t trust them as far as I could throw them. Best case - they treat it like a vacation, a pre retirement retirement . I don’t want my fees to pay for someone’s lavish vacation type lifestyle. You get pensions at the end of your tenure if you’ve earned them but we already have too little money in higher ed to spend it on big salaries for VCs and (some) deans and emeritus faculty who don’t do much. I’d rather these people be held accountable and be made to do work. And if they fail- I’d rather that money go to funding legal education for poor students.

BCI Rules don't randomly allow BCI to suspend all convicted criminals. Only "offences of moral turpitude" carry disqualification under the advocates act. The circular is simply overbroad: it covers not only all criminal convictions, but even pending cases! There is no way this can be a reasonable exercise of the BCI's powers.

In any case the disqualification only applies where a law graduate seeks to enrol as an advocate. It is no ground for withholding a degree. Education cannot be withheld to anyone interested irrespective of their criminal status - many individuals in jail in fact undertake educational courses through distance learning as part of their reformation. This circular is wholly illegal.

Biometric attendance, CCTV surveillance etc will fail the test of proportionality under the Puttaswamy judgment on at least two grounds: there is no legal authorisation, and therefore no legitimate purpose (Advocates Act only authorises BCI to maintain "standards of legal education" which is a far stretch); and these are not the least invasive alternatives available to maintain attendance (or prevent fraud).

Okay but the BCI circular does not say they're suspending anyone for anything. Did you read it? They're simply saying universities should do a criminal background check and report any cases where there are convictions or pending cases so the BCI can make a call. That is not overbroad. That is a far more efficient way for them to ensure that people who have committed offences of moral turpitude do not enter the profession. It is difficult to regulate when people are expected to disclose their crimes, no one wants to. And it is stupid to expect someone to file a complaint seeking to disbar a fellow advocate when they know about criminal antecedents, you don't survive in the profession that way. It is much more reasonable to expect that law schools will do this. When you apply to LLM programmes abroad you check a box that gives the university permission to do a background check on you and you are required to disclose any pending cases or convictions. Why should Indian universities not have the same rules? No one is saying people can't get educated or get a degree if they've committed a crime- that's not what the circular says. the BCI seems to be saying you have to disclose and the BCI will review. That seems reasonable no?

They would only withhold your certificate if you failed to disclose. If you disclose they will review your file and figure out if there's reason to deny you bar registration- that's a nuance you're missing.

I don't think theres a legitimate expectation of privacy within classrooms. By nature, they're public spaces. Your housing association may put cameras in the elevator for safety- that would not be breaking the law because a) the authority to put them in comes from housing association which people in the society sign up to, and b) there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. Similarly here: universities are being asked to do this by their regulator the authority stems from the university, and the classroom is not a private space, in fact, the classroom might be government property. Schools already do put CCTV cameras in classrooms and examination centres. It is done not just to check fraud but also to prevent and prosecute violence in classrooms.

It seems to me if its the BCI's job to ensure legal education in this country doesnt involve high levels of fraud- they might reasonably do so by mandating that people disclose criminal background and that universities record keep in a verifiable manner.

You give your biometric id to write UGC exams nowadays, even the clerkship exam I think. You're required to give your fingerprints and your aadhar for nearly everything, everyone working at the university has already handed over their aadhar to their employer. and I dont think theres been a case where that stuff has been used to politically persecute people? so what are we really saying is the harm.

The only one that I can foresee and that is reasonable to me is that universities might not have great security systems to maintain biometric information of all their students and it might lead to leaks. Thats all hypothetical- but in any case I would think an ID card scanning system is better than fingerprint id for attendance and stuff anyway.

Universities have no role in performing background checks. And everyone who graduates from a law university is not going to enroll, so why subject others to this unnecessary scrutiny? By your logic all members of the public should undergo criminal background checks for all employment.

Universities absolutely have a role in asking students and faculty and staff to disclose criminal history. That's all that's happening. No one is spending money trying to do background check. It's there so people disclose, and when they fail to disclose, there will be serious consequences. If you do have a pending case and you disclose- likely, the BCI won't care at all unless it is a very serious offence. How do you propose the BCI efficiently ensure they're doing their job in regulating the legal profession if not by, you know- asking universities to keep records? If you don't enroll, and you disclose at admission, then you have no problems getting your degree. Read the regulation!

Your last sentence is honestly insane. Being a lawyer is being an officer of the court- it's not chopping wood or carrying cement. That's not all employment. And for many government jobs , for jobs as doctors, teachers, etc etc you do have to sign a piece of paper disclosing criminal background. And lying is punishable with termination. Guess what to be a chartered accountant, there are regulations you need to meet too, and to be a teacher you need a teaching license and to own a shop or a restaurant you need to abide by safety standards, health standards, liquor licenses, so many regulations. That's kind of how we make sure that people stay alive. The BCI exists exactly to do this regulation and you want to create some slippery slope fallacy where none exists.

Okay, but does that work? does the system of only requiring disclosure at enrollment actually work to help prevent people who have committed offences involving moral turptitude from becoming and representing themselves and others as lawyers?

What is jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is about whether they can- not about whether they should. They absolutely can, regulating legal education is perfectly within the BCI's mandate. Youre saying they shouldnt- thats about policy.

No, I'm saying that criminal background checks have no nexus to education and therefore they have no jurisdiction to enforce criminal background checks on educational institutes.

The BCIs powers to regulate the legal profession and legal education are separate and distinct. They cannot use one set of powers in the other field.

That's a strange reading of the statute that is not borne out at all. Both regulating the bar and legal education are in the same section of the act. Theres nothing to bear out "they cannot use one set of powers in the other field". Thats just entirely made up. Theres no real right to withhold information about criminal background from universities. Private universities especially but even government ones. There are limits on your right to privacy and criminal background checks when someone is housing you with other students or giving you an education that helps you enroll as a lawyer might not fall within those limits.

Unless the BCI does something that actually prevents the education right or the free speech right- im not sure theres a legal reason to oppose this. There might be a moral one, but I do think some of this is hysteria. No one is really going to be affected by it. its something to outrage about on twitter but signing a sheet of paper declaring your criminal antecedents is not this great violation of your rights.