With lack of academicians in the Bar Council of India (BCI), many law college faculties have raised concerns that BCI not being an academic body lacks expertise in understanding the significance of a balanced legal curriculum. They claim that a uniform syllabus is not followed across universities in the state and country.
‘Ministry took cognisance’
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. BCI is depicting itself as a regulatory body, which is not the case and hence the letter (copy with this paper) has been sent to the ministry of law and judiciary, which has taken cognisance of it.”
“The BCI was established to regulate the legal practitioners (practising 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 legal education, by way of inspecting law colleges individually and making a demand for exorbitant yearly fees, which is unfair. The role of BCI will start only when a law graduate enrolls himself as a practitioner,” said Wankhede.
Important subject deleted
“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 syllabus. There is a need to have a body of academicians to frame the curriculum for law students,” Dr Sharmila Ghuge, associate professor, Jitendra Chauhan College of Law, Vile Parle.
Dr Ghuge observed that when the laws are uniform for the country, various universities have different syllabi. “A few teach cyber laws, a few teach POCSO Act while 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,” said Dr Ghuge.
Interpretation of statute
“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, . 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 practising advocate and visiting faculty.
UGC for legal education
Nitin Yadav, founder President of Self-Financed Colleges’ Federation (with over 680 law colleges from all over India) from Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh said, “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).”
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.”
Student union speaks
Advocate Siddharth Ingle, founder President of Maharashtra Students Union (MASU) said, “Teforms in the legal education system in the country are much needed and BCI is not an authoritative body to design the legal curriculum for law courses, as most of its members are practising 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.”
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 (see box).
The other side
Numerous attempts made to contact Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman Bar Council of India, did not yield result.
‘BCI’s powers should be limited’
The Parliamentary committee stated: “The Committee recommends that BCI’s powers to regulate legal education should be limited to the extent of acquiring basic eligibility for practising at the Bar. For other regulatory functions related to higher education in law, 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.”
