2006 Nalsar Hyderabad graduate and Oxford D Phil student Anup Surendranath sent an RTI request to the BCI on 10 August 2010 making 12 requests for information related to the bar exam.
In particular, Surendranath asked whether the BCI issued a public notification inviting proposals and requested details on the selection process adopted to select organisations, companies or institutions to partner with the BCI on the bar exam, the minutes of relevant meetings, communications and agreements between the BCI and Rainmaker and information relating to the amounts paid and proposed to be paid by the BCI to Rainmaker to date.
On 21 September 2010, BCI officiating secretary and central public information officer JR Sharma replied with a four-page letter and 18 pages of annexures.
In its response the BCI said that “as of this date, no money has been paid to Rainmaker” but did not elaborate further in response to Surendranath’s original request for “information relating to the amounts paid by the [BCI] to Rainmaker till date, and information relating to the amounts proposed to be paid by the [BCI] to Rainmaker in connection with the [bar exam]”.
The BCI also stated that “no public notification was issued inviting proposals to partner the Bar Council of India (BCI) to conduct the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), as the direction to implement the AIBE came from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in proceedings pending before it”.
The response recounted that after media reports were published on the order of the apex court in the Bonnie Foi Law College case, “representatives of Rainmaker came on their own initiative to attend the hearings in the Supreme Court and met the Chairman of the BCI on 23rd April 2010. They originated a proposal and a road map for the implementation of the AIBE and several other reform programmes including a database of legal institutions, lawyers, students, and a CLE programme, and offered to roll out the same with very little expense to the BCI”.
“The Bar Council did not find any companies or organizations which were involved in preparation of legal material and legal knowledge services,” added the BCI. Further, it stated that “no organisation/company/institution came forward to submit proposals to partner the BCI to conduct the AIBE or for any other reforms, apart from Rainmaker”.
“No process/criteria was required for shortlisting” because there had been “no other proposals apart from that of Rainmaker”, wrote the BCI.
The decision to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Rainmaker was taken at the BCI executive committee meeting of 5 June 2010, stated the organisation’s letter, but it did not include the MOU or a minute of that meeting despite Surendranath having requested such minutes.
Earlier this month, the BCI has published minutes of three BCI meetings of 30 April, 21 August and 4 September but there was no record of the 5 June executive committee meeting was published on the BCI’s website or elsewhere.
The BCI did include two emails and presentations sent by Rainmaker to the BCI on 23 April 2010 and 13 May 2010, which consisted mainly of general proposals for the bar exam and reform.
It is understood that Surendranath is looking to appeal the BCI’s response to his RTI.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) and Rainmaker were unavailable for comment.
Comments
Thats because you never issued a tender asking for proposals! Who are you trying to fool BCI?
Fabulous work by the student! If Rainmaker thought they will get away with this on the basis of some cool presentation they made, they were wrong!
@ Kian: the BCI's response thing is not opening!
Rainmaker is now conducting mock test examinations with law colleges, I wonder how much they are charging for that. Kian I request you to please look into it, they should be nailed for this.
Disgusted.
According to my understanding there are also several other similar RTI's before the BCI. If you are one of the ones who filed one and have not yet received a reply (or an unsatisfactory one), please get in touch with me and we can follow it up.
Best regards
Kian
1- application fee
2- fees for the copies that the BCI may provide
This is hilarious. WTF should a citizen of India pay so much money to get information from the government authority? As far as I know, the RTI Application fee was Rs. 10/-. That means, Anup is paying Rs. 490/- for copies of the reply which is 22 pages. So, BCI pockets more than Rs. 400/- Great!
We live in interesting times indeed.
There is a man who lies in the middle of things, who knows whats best for the country....and ironically doesnt believe in procedure too much - Its the result which matters to him!!
To the BCI statement that nobody else approached them, Anup, please insist on inspection of the visitors entry register at the BCI offices at the time the Bar Exam was announced in the media (Mar- June 2010). “Doodh kaa doodh aur paani ka paani ho jaayegaa” …all skeletons will stumble out of the cupboard ( if the BCI does not destroy the visitor records …that is). It will be clear who all from the other exam vendors had come to BCI.
We are sure that other vendor representatives are no idiots to just sit and not approach a potential client if such a big news in media is there about a business opportunity (even if there is no call for competitive bids or tenders).
But the way things are in our country it is none of these vendors will have courage to go public or make an “official” complaint.
I think part of the reason maybe that if people from the nondescript colleges in backwaters qualify, then the whole "national" law school sheen might lose some of its allure.
Like it doesn't matter a whit which college you came from when qualify for the IAS or which school you went, when you crack the IIT.
Criticism of a serious attempt to bring some standards to the profession is really indefensible - and stupid.
Further, the Bar Exam must be the culmination of the reforms in legal education. It cannot be a starting point. We must first ensure that all law colleges of the country reach an acceptable and minimum standrads in delivering their legal education. And after those standards have been achieved, then the bar exam as a mechanism to filter law graduates should be held.
Currently, holding the bar exam is unfair to students from the third tier law colleges which do not have acceptable standrads in imparting legal education. Now not only did these students not able to get a sound legal education (for no fault of theirs) but the bar exam will now filter them for not having cleared the exam. Although, the number of attempts in clearing the bar exam is unlimited and the students do have the choice to write the exam again if they dont clear it in their initial attempt, it only results in more expenditure on the part of the students and consequently, more money to rainmaker.
I am all for the Bar Exam but the timing is wrong. Competition must be among equals and not among unequals.
Also, I dont understand why the BCI is not disclosing the contract it entered into with Rainmaker. With such transparency standards, I doubt the BCI Chairman's intention.
Lets see what the courts have to say to this RTI. Along with the law established by stare decisis and statue.
A truly sorry state of affairs of a body governing the practice of law in our country.
Just shows how causally the BCI takes it decisions.
Chapter 6 of the General finical rules 2005
cover all bodies falling under "Article 12", it clearly says that "offers must be invited" for the procurement of services and goods.
Now the Onus probandi is on the BCI.
or you fixed the matter beforehand Mr. Rainmaker Loyalist ? ;-)
In the UK they are trying desperately to simplify the law for laymen - so no "plaintiff", "affidavit" etc. Replaced by claimant and statement of truth. Don't forget English is a rich language...
Good luck with that!
stare decisis
Onus probandi
those two extra years in law school really give you the latin maxim edge.
How many of us belong to that rarefied club "Ambani & Sons" who don't have to work thanks to dad making tonnes of money for the kids?
For the aam aadmni work is indeed worship (even doing a con job requires effort!).
Now I know where the Latin-lover (no pun) law school grad is headed to...Copacabana! Enjoy.
Rainmaker's business is not running well so devised a new plan to earn eay money..
They will fail in this venture too.
With personal contact you can grab a top position or launch a company but that does not entitle you to know law ~ proved once again.