The Madras High Court Bench here on Tuesday stayed operation of a decision taken by Bar Council of India (BCI) enabling those who had completed Class X, Class XII and graduation through any mode, including distance education, correspondence and even open schooling method, to join three-year and five-year law courses.
A Division Bench of Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and P. Velmurugan granted the interim stay on a public interest litigation petition filed and argued in person by Madurai-based advocate K.K. Ramakrishnan. The judges agreed with the petitioner that the decision of the BCI would cause serious confusion in the eligibility criteria for admission into law courses across the country.
Referring to judgements delivered by the Supreme Court and the High Court in 2009 and 2010 respectively to streamline admission into law courses, the Bench said the decision taken by the BCI, reportedly on the basis of a clarification issued by its Legal Education Committee on April 30, would amount to superseding the court rulings.
“The Legal Education Committee has no authority to supersede a judgement passed by a court of law. Its clarification can at best be only an opinion of the members of the committee and not a law by itself,” the judges said, and ordered that admissions to law courses this year should be made on the basis of the criteria that existed prior to the recent decision taken by the BCI.
A notification issued by the BCI on May 16 read: “For seeking admission into three-year law courses, qualifications needed are only 12th and three-year graduation with 12th being the basic qualification. For seeking admission into five-year law courses, only 10th and 12th qualification suffices with 10th being the basic qualification. The qualifications of 10th, 12th (Plus Two) and graduation may be obtained through any mode (distance/ correspondence/ open schooling method).”
Contending that the BCI’s decision would enable candidates who had never stepped into a school to become lawyers and spoil the sanctity of the profession, the petitioner stressed that only those who had undergone regular schooling under the 10 plus two pattern should be allowed to be admitted in law courses.
