Supreme Court questions BCI over alleged interference in academic affairs

Questioning the Bar Council of India (BCI) over alleged interference in academic affairs of law colleges, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said it should be left to academicians.

“Why are you interfering in academic affairs? Why should the BCI decide the curriculum, etc., of law colleges? Some academic experts should take up these things. In this country there is a very big class of lawyers. You have an onerous statutory responsibility of updating their knowledge and organising training programmes for them,” a bench led by Justice Surya Kant told the BCI, which regulates the legal profession and legal education in India.

“You can have training on art of drafting, understanding case laws, etc., and it should be part of your statutory responsibility. The curriculum has to be entrusted to the academicians,” the bench – which also included Justice N Kotiswar Singh – said while hearing petitions challenging the BCI’s 2021 decision to scrap the one-year LLM course and de-recognise foreign LLMs.

“You (BCI) take care of your responsibility. There are almost 10 lakh lawyers in the country, and you should focus on training them rather than going on inspection to law colleges,” the bench said, adding academicians could examine the academic issue.

Asking the Centre and UGC to spell out their respective stand, the bench requested Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist it in the matter and posted it for hearing in July.

As senior advocate Vivek Tankha submitted on behalf of the BCI it was the “existing system”, the bench said, “You (BCI) have imposed yourself and you are claiming that you are the only authority in this country.”

Tankha said a committee of stakeholders headed by a former Chief Justice of India was set up to examine and recommend a framework to equate one-year and two-year LLM degrees.

The bench, however, said, “In legal education, the judiciary is the primary stakeholder...What kind of officers are we getting? Are they properly sensitised? Do they have compassion? Do they understand the ground realities or just deliver mechanical judgments?” it asked.

On behalf of the Consortium of National Law Universities, senior advocate AM Singhvi said the BCI was trying to interfere with not just LLMs, but also PhDs and diplomas.

“The purpose of the BCI was to regulate entry into the legal profession…Then came the statute on admissions... We are not saying abolish the two-year course (LLM), but would a practising lawyer like to do a two-year LLM or a one-year LLM?” he asked.