15 August,2024 07:10 AM IST | Mumbai | Vinod Kumar Menon
Representational image. Pic/iStock
With lack of academicians in the Bar Council of India (BCI) many law college faculties have raised their concern stating that BCI is not an academic body and lacks expertise in understanding the significance of a balanced legal curriculum. They claim that uniform syllabus is not followed across universities in the state and country.
Similarly serious concerns were raised by the SNDT Law School (SNDT Women's University), Santacruz West, which had recently written to the Union Ministry of Law and Judiciary, (copy with this paper), raising concern about the practice adopted by the BCI with reference to inspection of law colleges and charging exorbitant inspection fees. The letter also claims that BCI lacks expertise in administering legal education, as its members are law graduates and are practicing advocates, governed under the Advocates Act 1961.
Rajesh Wankhede, in-charge head, SNDT Law School, said, "Unlike other professions like medicine and engineering, which have their own academic councils consisting of expert academicians, who design the academic courses / curriculum and regulate the same, law is the only professional course, where there is no regulatory body, to regulate the legal education system. BCI is depicting itself to be the regulatory body, which is not the case and hence the letter has been sent to the ministry of law and judiciary, which has taken cognizance of my letter and has reverted back to me."
Rajesh Wankhede, in-charge head, SNDT Law School
"The intention behind establishing the BCI was to regulate the legal practitioners (practicing advocates) and welfare of the advocates as per the Advocates Act, 1961. Also, section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961, empowers BCI only to make suggestions to respective Universities, to impart legal education. The law doesn't allow BCI in any way to regulate the legal education, by way of inspecting law colleges individually and making a demand for exorbitant yearly fees, which is unfair. Moreover, imparting legal education is as per the guidelines of University Grant Commission (UGC) and University, where BCI do not have any academic role to play. The role of BCI will start only when a law graduate enrolls himself or herself as a law practitioner with the respective bar council and obtains the certificate to practice after appearing for AIBE examination conducted by the BCI," said Wankhede.
"BCI is not an academic body and lacks the expertise of understanding the significance of a balanced curriculum for law students which is evident from the BCI's decision to delete an important subject like interpretation of statute from the law syllabus. BCI as a statutory body may be doing the needful for monitoring the professional aspects of advocates, however, there is a need to have a body of academicians to frame the curriculum for law students in accordance with the changes in laws from time to time," Dr Sharmila Ghuge, associate professor, Jitendra Chauhan College of Law, Vile Parle.
Dr Sharmila Ghuge, associate professor, Jitendra Chauhan College of Law, Vile Parle
Dr Ghuge observed that when the laws are uniform for the entire nation, various universities have different syllabus. "A few teach cyber laws, whereas others don't, few teach POCSO Act whereas others don't. If we look upon BCI as the parent body not only for advocates but also for law students then there is need to improve the Legal Education Rules 2008, floated by BCI. Even the criteria of 75% attendance mandated by the BCI is not at all followed by the students of any law colleges, and it is high time that the rules should be implemented in reality, and those who violate the same the statutory bodies like BCI must take action," said Dr Ghuge.
Nitin Yadav, founder President of Self-Financed Colleges (with over 680 law colleges from all over India) from Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh speaking to mid-day said, "It is a fact that BCI do not have any academic council to impart legal education or plan curriculums for legal courses. Instead of formulating a new body, it is better that the task can be assigned to the University Grants Commission (UGC), or All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) or National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). UGC is known for handling colleges pan India and designing their academic curriculums, they have required expertise and by having additional manpower and academicians, they can easily handle legal education curriculum too, which will make it uniform legal education for all the law colleges and universities in the country."
Nitin Yadav, founder President of Self-Financed Colleges from Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh
Yadav even highlighted the recently submitted Parliamentary committee report, which has made important observations about BCI imparting legal education, speaks for itself. "We have already made our submissions to the competent authorities to act on the committee's recommendation."
"The problem with legal education (LLB) today is that it lacks practical utility. Blame the lack of practical training and exposure, inadequate research, and a lack of focus on the needs of the legal profession. Moreover crucial law subjects like Interpretation of statute (IOS) gets scrapped by the BCI, with no application of mind. IOS is an important subject to understand various provisions of laws and Judgments passed by courts. The subject also provides students with a comprehensive understanding of the legal system, viz. understanding about the sources of law, structure of the legal system, and process of legal reasoning and decision-making, which help the students in their professional practice in court rooms. Unfortunately, we do not have a uniform law course today. Every University has different subjects taught in their legal curriculum and I personally feel BCI needs to walk the talk," said advocate Dhanpal Jain, a practicing advocate and visiting faculty in many colleges in the city.
Advocate Dhanpal Jain
Advocate Siddharth Ingle, founder President of Maharashtra Students Union (MASU) said, "It is need of the hour to bring in reforms in the legal education system in the country and Bar Council of India (BCI) is not an authoritative body to design the legal curriculum for law courses, as most of its members are practicing advocates, who are governed under Advocates Act, 1961. MASU demands that an academic council and board of studies should be formed for legal education in the country, as BCI only has a legal education committee, which is not a full-fledged body of academicians who can design a uniform legal curriculum which could be implemented at all universities."
Advocate Siddharth Ingle, founder President of Maharashtra Students Union
Numerous attempts made to contact Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman Bar Council of India, did not yield result.
Interestingly, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice chaired by Sushil Kumar Modi, MP, Rajya Sabha, presented its 142nd report on the subject - "Strengthening Legal Education in view of emerging challenges before the Legal Profession" on February 7, 2024 to both the Houses of Parliament and had made several important observations.
The Parliamentary committee, in its deliberations and recommendations stated: "The Advocates Act, 1961 was enacted with a limited view of legal education producing only lawyers for courts. However, over the years legal education has not remained confined to a limited role of producing lawyers only."
"Today law graduates pursue a range of careers beyond the courtroom practice. So, the legal curriculum in education institutions needs to be designed in a manner that enables the development of skills required for pursuing diverse legal professions and not just courtroom practice. Thus, there is no sense in the BCI having regulatory powers over the entire spectrum of legal education. Further, the BCI has neither power nor expertise to meet the challenges of the ever-changing globalized world. This view has also been expounded by the National Knowledge Commission. Also, there is a near unanimity amongst all the expert witnesses who appeared before the Committee, on this particular issue."
"Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the BCI's powers to regulate legal education should be limited to the extent of acquiring basic eligibility for practicing at the Bar. For other regulatory functions related to higher education in law i.e. post graduation and above, which are presently being performed by the BCI, and which are not related directly to practice at the Bar should be entrusted to an independent authority, the National Council for Legal Education and Research to be established under the proposed Higher Education Commission of India."
"Many of the stakeholders have also raised serious concern about the manner in which the BCI has used the power to inspect law colleges and grant them recognition which has led to a reckless proliferation of substandard law colleges in the country. Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that while granting recognition to new colleges due consideration should be given to quality over quantity. It is imperative for the BCI to take urgent and effective measures to curb the proliferation of substandard law colleges in India and to ensure the quality and excellence of legal education and profession in the country."
