Nearly 300 students of the college had assembled in the court premises yesterday according to students to await the outcome of final arguments in the writ petition 5269/2010 filed by law students Sunil Shamlal Bhagure and nine others before the Aurangabad division bench consisting of justices P V Hardas and N D Deshpande.
The petitioners’ counsel Satish Talekar said yesterday: “The matter was heard for three days continuously and unfortunately for us today they passed an order granting time till 9 August to apply before the SC on the statement made by the BCI’s counsel.
“The counsel appearing for the BCI stated that there was some order [Bonnie FOI] made by Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the BCI and that SLP [Special Leave Petition] is posted for hearing on the 30 July.”
The Bonnie FOI case concerned BCI inspections of law colleges, with the case reaching the Supreme Court in 2008 where the bench also addressed issues related to general legal education reform to improve standards.
Talekar explained: “So the judges said that if the same issue is pending before the SC [Supreme Court Bonnie FOI case] then judicial discipline propriety demands that they must refrain from hearing the matter unless there is an order passed under Article 145 by the SC transferring all the petitions to SC.”
“Unless such an order is passed you can’t refuse to hear the matter and abdicate judicial power,” said Talekar. “Now all the petitions will be heard together.”
Assistant Solicitor General and standing counsel Alok Sharma appeared for the BCI.
The writ petition was filed on 18 June by ten students of Manikchand Pahade Law College following the BCIs announcement to hold an entry level exam to practice law in the country on 5 December.
Petitioner student Avinash told Legally India that students were very disappointed.
The BCI’s decision to hold the all India bar exam has faced stiff opposition by the student community with at least six reported writ petitions already filed in different high courts of the country ever since the bar exam was announced on 2 June.
BCI chairman and Solicitor General of India Gopal Subramanium had commented on the legality of these writ petitions in interview with Legally India, published Tuesday.
He said: “I am clear in my mind that it’s legal and constitutional,” an said. “We are planning to also get these petitions transferred to the Supreme Court because [the petitions are all] dealing with one aspect.”
Meanwhile, the Bar Council of Delhi has formed a three-member committee consisting of Amit Sharma, Rakesh Tiku and Puneet Mittal to draft a white paper to look into the legality of bar exam.
The Delhi Bar Council’s Mittal told Legally India: “We are examining the issue: there are some serious problems to be addressed and we’ll be discussing alternate solutions and other state bar councils have also worked on it, but prima facie it is contrary to the SC judgement in V Sudeer.”
Meanwhile, the National Delegation of Law Students led by Amity Law School student Siddharth Seth had approached the State Bar Council for support through a representation based on legal principles involved in this whole issue.
Seth said: “Almost all state Bar Councils have opposed this exam on one ground or the other, some have passed resolutions against it, several legal luminaries have raised questions, many academicians are also worried, final year students throughout the country are unanimously requesting that it should be called off and even the BCI has partially accepted that it is causing hardship.”
Download the Aurangabad writ petition here.
Picture by Eflon
Comments
Bal and Raj will be very happy...
We have amended the copy to read "A High Court bench in Maharashtra" rather than "The Maharashtra High Court", which I realise might still leave room for objection but should be a little clearer.
Best,
Kian
You can refer to the official court web site, rather that questioning Legally India(which so kindly entertains nimbits like you)blow your horn before the legislative or judicial policy makers!
http://www.indiancourts.nic.in/
Don’t care if you agree, I never said it’s a technical mistake because there is no mistake per se.
I had asked to be explained the technical difference between why the Rajasthan High Court is normally not referred to as the Jodhpur High Court and the Karnataka High Court is called as such and not Bangalore High Court whereas its always Allahabad High Court, not Uttar Pradesh High Court or Patna High Court, not Bihar High Court.
Lessons in nitpicking, especially for you - how could a lawyer/person with a law background like yours (assuming you are one, by your own admission: “legally india is a site meant for lawyers”) refer to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as Article 377? That is an error, also its Legally India not legally india and ‘decriminisation’ is spelled wrong - The general stuff that can be ignored unless someone’s a habitual nitpicker.
Also which is why, I fail to understand how should a mere mention of Maharashtra High instead of Bombay High Court cause embarrassment to Legally India?
But that is a decision the BCI cannot take. It's easy for the BCI to impose its will on a few thousand students with no real voice of their own than to do so on an imposing figure of a million + who will literally bring the legal machinery in the country to a standstill if they were asked to write the exam too.
what caused such a sudden change in statements, even the law commission and knowledge commission have said that to conduct bar exams the advocates act must be amended.
what has caused the BCI to make such a so called perfect example of "a back door legislation" is best know to just them.
Also on June on the release of the vision statement Talking to journalists, Law Minister Veerappa Moily said "He said the legal profession was governed by the Advocates Act and no Bill would be possible without amending the Act."
BCI Vice-Chairman R. Dhanapal Raj and members of various State Bar Councils were present at the launch of the Vision Statement.
Every law is an evil, for every law is an infraction of liberty.
principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham.
one more clarification: state bar council of mp , punjab , delhi and rajasthan say none of the state bar councils have form since there are fundamental objections to this exam ?
@39 you are absolutely correct
'Even now it is perfectly legal and within the ambit of the Act" this parts is a bit hazy.
When something has been expressly omitted by the Parent Act a subordinate body created under that Act does not have the power to implement such a law by means of the Delegated Rule making power(which is a form of subordinate legislation)give to it to help fulfill the role of the Act.
Such a legislation which is outside the ambit of the Act created by a subordinate rule making body is generally called a "color-able legislation".
By a omission to the Act In 1973 they felt it fit to remove Bar Exams because of the powers of quality control of the education of lawyers given to the BCI (little did they know back then that it would not be enough.)
Jean Rousseau in "The Social Contract" said "Good Laws lead to the making of better one; bad one bring out worse."
The Bar Exams are a excellent and brilliant Idea but they should be brought into force through an amendment to the Act.
The Doctrine of precedents applies in Indian courts so even other bodies of Delegated legislation will be effected by a rule in this matter of Restricting the Rule making power of a Delegated bodies.
Judgment in this case will be one to watch out for as Mr. Ram Jethmalani has moved the Sc regarding Bar exams.
[...]
So we will find out how much Power does the SC let the Delegated Bodies like the BCI exercise.
We made a mistake in the past lest we repeat it in the future worse laws will come our way.
at aurangabad
we filed writ petition for getting right to practice.
and no doubt we will succed.
u are humbly requested for supporting us...............!
In my understanding though the Bar exam is a right concept, but in the words of Hon'ble Apex Court, "To do a right thing one must follow the right path". The right path here would be to have the power to introduce such exam, unfortunately Bar Council u/sec's 7 or 26 lack such power.
In absence of it this exam has acquired the character of forced expenditure upon thousands of Law Grads.
The legal profession purely depends upon each ones personal ability and caliber, no matter what some will certainly be better than others.
The only result of Bar Exam shall be lesser number of Advocates(special class) and the functioning of the small causes courts would come to a complete stand still, as none of the meritorious ones opt for small causes courts.
Ultimately the burden of this exam shall fall upon the already reducing numbers of litigants who would find it very hard to afford this new breed of lawyers.
Further, please read comment #29 for inputs.
U are humbly requested for support us
in writ petition against bar council of india.
lastl'y It's question about our future yaar?
thanks.
forward it..........!!!