The Bar Council of India (BCI), the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), and the union law ministry were yesterday served with a legal notice asking that the bar council be suspended for failing in their duty to update a “defective” law syllabus in law schools across the country, the Pune Mirror reported.
Former Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist KC Jaisinghani served the notice, and is planning to file a public interest litigation in the Bombay High Court if no action is taken within 60 days.
A BCI spokesperson declined to confirm to Legally India if the notice had been received by the regulator and whether it planned to take any action with regard to the law syllabus, saying that it was an “internal matter”.
Jaisinghani had written to the prime minister and the HRD minister on 30 January 2012 that the syllabus does not cover all Indian laws making judges and lawyers under-qualified. For example, municipal laws are not included in the BCI-prescribed curriculum. He said that his representation was forwarded to the BCI which failed to take any action.
He holds that teaching all Indian laws is mandatory under Section 57(1) of the Evidence Act, and had authored a book – Corruption Formula, last year, discussing the BCI prescribed syllabus’ “loopholes”, according to the Times of India.
BCMG member and senior advocate Harshad Nimbalkar said:
Some subjects are not covered in the BCI syllabus, but to fill this lacuna, BCI has been conducting an All India Bar Exam (AIBE) for the last three years, mandatory for all students completing a fiveyear law degree. Law is a vast topic, only experience brings perfection.
Comments
This is why scientists need to stick to whatever they do.
The petitioner's [lack of] legal understanding is clear from the words "He holds that teaching all Indian laws is mandatory under Section 57(1) of the Evidence Act". ROFL! Ha ha ha. What comedy. Section 57 does not contain a mandate like that. See text of the section at http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/indian-evidence-act/section57-indian-evidence-act.htm
For those who need a further explanation, read on.
- the objective of legal education is not to teach every law to the students. there are 100s of statutes which even lawyers with decades of practice have not even heard of. it is not possible to teach law students the 1000 odd statutes that we have!
- just because the Information Technology Act is new, does not mean the older lawyers and judges cannot understand it because it was not taught to them! law students are supposed to learn how to interpret and apply the law and that makes them capable of understanding all laws, regardless of whether it was 'taught' in college. otherwise, how will a lawyer understand a newly passed legislation?
- even Harvard does not teach its students all the federal and state laws; in fact, it does not even teach statutory provisions, but focuses on the case law 'Socratic' method, which the national law universities are following. this relates to the point above that law students are only required to be taught how to interpret and apply the law
- the current LLB syllabus prescribes that around 18 major statutes and codes like contract, constitution, evidence etc. are mandatory subjects and must be taught; so, @$$ covered, over and out!
Much ado about nothing, this petition. Retarded thinking by someone who does not understand the law.
1. Restricting foreign firms.
2. Terrble Bar exam.
3. Calling colleges like Bhartiyavidyapeeth and Amity as premier law schools of India and awarding them.
4. Making some sick basement library cafe of 1 cr.
5. Even SC rebuked you guys lately.
We need a new and upgraded and cooler version of BCI.