Justice N Kirubakaran of the Madras high court passed radical directions on a petition asking the court to curb entry of persons with criminal antecedents into the legal profession and to maintain purity of law courses, reported The Times of India.
The various directions included:
1. Bar Council of India (BCI) to abolish three year law course at the earliest and retain only five year course.
2. BCI’s functions to be handled by a body headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court permanently or till amendment of the advocates act to this effect occurs.
3. BCI to consist of academicians, legal luminaries, social workers, retired police and IAS officers and doctors
4. Centre to amend advocates act so that entry of criminals, and communal and extremist elements into the profession is barred
5. Antecedent verification to be made compulsory for law graduates seeking enrollment
6. Graduates facing punishment of non-bailable or compoundable nature to be only provisionally enrolled.
7. BCI to direct every law college to conduct police verification of the students before granting them admission.
8. Police to send antecedent verification within three weeks of receipt of request
9. BCI to not conduct the next bar council elections in 2016 without prescribing minimum qualification like 20 years standing in the bar or a senior counsel not having any criminal background for candidates to be eligible to contest in council polls.
10. To reduce number of law seats in colleges to control the increasing number of law graduates each year.
11. BCI to recognise only one lawyers’ association to enable fairness in working of the same.
Kirubakaran was quoted as saying:
This court hopes that the issue of criminalization of the profession is seriously taken note of by the Supreme Court and the central government and to redeem the profession from the clutches of persons with criminal background.
Also read, today’s column in Mint by Legally India editor Kian Ganz: Who will bell the legal cat? Because it probably won’t be BCI or judiciary…
Comments
I'd wager that the majority are non-law firm stories...
For instance, only from yesterday, I'd recommend you read our analysis of strikes by lawyers, which may be the biggest menace besetting the legal system and which I don't think has been covered by anyone before:
http://www.legallyindia.com/Bar-Bench-Litigation/100-unofficial-indian-court-holidays-later-sc-still-has-no-solution-for-frequent-lawyer-strikes
And here's my column on a similar issue, suggesting the only solution:
http://www.legallyindia.com/Legal-opinions/who-will-bell-the-legal-cat-because-it-probably-won-t-be-bci-or-judiciary
And did you read our account of what happened yesterday in Aadhaar?
http://www.legallyindia.com/SCOI-Reports/seniors-clash-hotly-in-aadhaar-interim-order-modification-plea-sc-reserves-till-wednesday-3-30pm
Just because law firm articles get the most comments, doesn't mean we don't also publish other things which also see as much, if not more traffic.
LI's initial purpose in life was to report an unreported sector - law firms - and I'm glad we've found such an interested and engaged audience.
But LI has grown since then.
Finally, if you don't like the law firm articles, you can filter them out from the frontpage so you don't ever have to see one again: just click the blue 'interests & preferences' button and deselect law firm news and 'editor's picks'.
Agree the 3-year course recommendation is interesting, but that's been mooted before many times.
What's more interesting, I think, is that for the first time the judiciary has actually attacked the BCI's functioning and recommended that its entire constitution be changed.
That's far bigger, in my opinion, than just the 3-year LLB (which will probably survive as long as the BCI stays the way it is)
http://myneta.info/bih2010/candidate.php?candidate_id=712