The Delhi High Court has come to the rescue of the law students of Delhi University (DU), who were detained for the shortage of attendance..A number of law students had approached the Delhi High Court through multiple writ petitions, protesting a notification issued by the Faculty of Law, DU on May 7. This notification had intimated the DU administration’s decision to detain the students from appearing for their end-semester exams on account of shortage of attendance..Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education of the Bar Council of India Rules (BCI Rules), mandates that law students must have a minimum of 70% attendance to appear for exams..On behalf of the law students, it was contended that the students were not to be blamed for their attendance shortage, given that DU had neither scheduled nor actually conducted the mandatory minimum number of classes as required by Rule 10 of the BCI Rules. Further, they had no warning that the classes conducted by DU would be below the statutory minimum..DU submitted that the petitioners’ attendance was calculated with reference to the total number of lecture classes actually held. The class hours conducted satisfied the statutory minimum criteria mandated by the BCI Rules under Clause 18 of Schedule III. The rule concerning mandatory attendance is required to be strictly followed. Therefore, the detention of the petitioners was sound once it was found that their attendance fell below the required 70%..Finding serious lapses on the part of DU in complying with the BCI Rules, Justice Rekha Palli today ruled in favour of the law students..Senior Advocates Kriti Uppal and Prashanto Sen appeared for the student-petitioners pro bono. Among other counsel, Advocates Himanshu Dhuper, Ashish Virmani, Rajesh Mishra, Mehmood Pracha and Eshna Kumar also appeared for the petitioners. Advocate JS Mohinder Rupal made arguments for the Faculty of Law, DU..Classes conducted in DU far below statutory minimum.Justice Palli found that DU had flouted the BCI Rules when it failed to comply with Rule 10, which required the University to conduct at least 450 hours of class. Rejecting DU’s stance that compliance with Clause 18 of Schedule III was sufficient, the Court held,.“…while interpreting the various applicable provisions of the BCI Rules in light of the stand taken by the Bar Council of India, I find that with respect to the organization of a regular LL.B. course, it is Rule 10 which prescribes the minimum number of classes required to be held by a recognized centre of legal education.”.In contrast, Clause 18 of Schedule III, mandating the conduct of 375 class hours, only governs the manner in which a particular subject must be organized..“The provisions of Clause 18 of Schedule III, only govern the organization of a subject-paper offered as a part of the LL.B. course and not the said course as a whole….…[Clause 18, Schedule III] cannot be resorted to for calculating the total number of class hours that must be conducted in an entire semester of a regular LL.B. course, for which purpose one must turn only to Rule 10.”.Having established that DU was bound to adhere to Rule 10, the judge went on to discern that class hours actually conducted by DU were far below the statutory minimum. Taking into consideration reliable evidence, the Court was constrained to consider only 230 hours of in-class lectures conducted by DU..“…it becomes apparent that the Faculty of Law has during the Concerned Semester, reliably conducted only 230 hours of class, which is approximately only 50% of the mandatory requirement under Rule 10 of the BCI Rules of conducting at least 450 hours of class during a semester of the regular unitary LL.B. course. .Needless to say, this is certainly a most regrettable state of affairs, especially for a leading centre of legal education in the capital of the country such as the Faculty of Law.”.This apart, the Court also expressed disapproval over manner in which attendance records were being maintained at DU..Glaring discrepancies in the original attendance records.It was noted that attendance was being marked in the most archaic fashion on loose attendance sheets that are maintained in a most disorganized manner..The attendance records revealed that the attendance of the students was not marked properly. Overwriting, use of different pens, and attendance marks by different persons were evident from the records produced before the court. The Court noted.“It is apparent that the students’ attendance has not been reliably marked by the concerned faculty members or even by the same person, and the attendance records are frequently edited ex-post facto….… I find merit in the Petitioners’ contention that even the attendance records as maintained by the Faculty of Law are manifestly arbitrary and utterly unreliable.”.DU cannot detain students for attendance shortage when it has not complied with BCI rules concerning mandatory hours .Ultimately, the Court’s decision rested on the following query..Can the Faculty of Law resort to Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education of the Bar Council of India Rules and detain its students studying in the LL.B. course on the ground of shortage of attendance, if it has itself not held the mandatory number of class hours prescribed under the said Rules?.Justice Palli answered this question in the negative, observing that,.“When a recognized law college does not comply with Rule 10, it essentially deprives its students of a reasonable chance to attend the necessary number of classes to meet the mandatory attendance criteria prescribed under Rule 12, since it does not afford the students an adequate opportunity to make up the shortfall in their attendance due to classes missed on account of valid concerns, or leaves taken under the legitimate expectation of having an adequate opportunity to attend future classes to compensate for their absence….… I find that it is only possible for students to plan their leaves and academic schedules when they have prior information about the number of classes that are going to be conducted and their approximate respective durations. In the absence of such information, academic schedules are too indeterminate, as a result of which students are unfairly disadvantaged since they are inevitably unable to avail any leave, for medical reasons or otherwise, without uncertainty or undue anxiety of falling short of the mandatory attendance criteria.”.In any case, the Court clarified that even if attendance is calculated on the basis on the classes actually held,.“…the Faculty of Law is not exonerated from the legal obligation to comply with the BCI Rules and hold the mandatory minimum number of class hours and working days as prescribed thereunder.”.Relief granted.In light of the Court’s observations, the May 7 notice was quashed with respect to the petitioners and other similarly placed students.In the interest of striking a balance between the students’ interests and ensuring adherence of BCI rules, the Court directed that extra classes be held for the petitioners to make up for the shortage of attendance and mandatory class hours. To this end, it was directed, “The Faculty of Law must, within 8 weeks, hold at least 139 hours of extra classes/tutorials for all those students desirous of attending the same and making up the shortfall in their attendance caused only due to the Faculty of Law’s failure to hold the mandatory minimum number of class hours in compliance with the BCI Rules.”.Students who were prevented from taking their end semester exams for attendance shortage should be allowed to write the supplementary exams. The declaration of supplementary exam results would be subject to these students attending the extra classes and thereby making up for their attendance shortage.As for students who were allowed to write their exams on interim orders of the Court, it was directed that their provisional results be released. However, this would also be subject to their attending the extra classes ordered by the Court..BCI directed to take immediate steps to ensure compliance of Rules.In the course of rendering judgement, Justice Palli also observed that law colleges frequently flouted BCI mandates, despite repeated observations that recognised centres of legal education must ensure meticulous compliance of BCI Rules. In this context, the Court remarked,.“The rampancy of such transgressions by law colleges is not only attributable to the educational institutes but also to the Bar Council of India, which has inevitably failed to exercise its powers of inspection under the BCI Rules and periodically inspect its recognized centres of legal education, in order to ensure their compliance with the said Rules. .There is no gainsaying that it is incumbent upon the Bar Council of India, which is a statutory body established under the Advocates Act, 1961, to not only promote and lay down the standards of legal education in the country but also to ensure their observance by recognized centres of legal education.”.This in turn has prompted the Court to also direct the BCI, to exercise its statutory powers under the Advocates Act, 1961 as also the Bar Council of India Rules, and take immediate steps to ensure the compliance of inter alia the Rules of Legal Education, by all its recognized centres of legal education..Read the judgement:
The Delhi High Court has come to the rescue of the law students of Delhi University (DU), who were detained for the shortage of attendance..A number of law students had approached the Delhi High Court through multiple writ petitions, protesting a notification issued by the Faculty of Law, DU on May 7. This notification had intimated the DU administration’s decision to detain the students from appearing for their end-semester exams on account of shortage of attendance..Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education of the Bar Council of India Rules (BCI Rules), mandates that law students must have a minimum of 70% attendance to appear for exams..On behalf of the law students, it was contended that the students were not to be blamed for their attendance shortage, given that DU had neither scheduled nor actually conducted the mandatory minimum number of classes as required by Rule 10 of the BCI Rules. Further, they had no warning that the classes conducted by DU would be below the statutory minimum..DU submitted that the petitioners’ attendance was calculated with reference to the total number of lecture classes actually held. The class hours conducted satisfied the statutory minimum criteria mandated by the BCI Rules under Clause 18 of Schedule III. The rule concerning mandatory attendance is required to be strictly followed. Therefore, the detention of the petitioners was sound once it was found that their attendance fell below the required 70%..Finding serious lapses on the part of DU in complying with the BCI Rules, Justice Rekha Palli today ruled in favour of the law students..Senior Advocates Kriti Uppal and Prashanto Sen appeared for the student-petitioners pro bono. Among other counsel, Advocates Himanshu Dhuper, Ashish Virmani, Rajesh Mishra, Mehmood Pracha and Eshna Kumar also appeared for the petitioners. Advocate JS Mohinder Rupal made arguments for the Faculty of Law, DU..Classes conducted in DU far below statutory minimum.Justice Palli found that DU had flouted the BCI Rules when it failed to comply with Rule 10, which required the University to conduct at least 450 hours of class. Rejecting DU’s stance that compliance with Clause 18 of Schedule III was sufficient, the Court held,.“…while interpreting the various applicable provisions of the BCI Rules in light of the stand taken by the Bar Council of India, I find that with respect to the organization of a regular LL.B. course, it is Rule 10 which prescribes the minimum number of classes required to be held by a recognized centre of legal education.”.In contrast, Clause 18 of Schedule III, mandating the conduct of 375 class hours, only governs the manner in which a particular subject must be organized..“The provisions of Clause 18 of Schedule III, only govern the organization of a subject-paper offered as a part of the LL.B. course and not the said course as a whole….…[Clause 18, Schedule III] cannot be resorted to for calculating the total number of class hours that must be conducted in an entire semester of a regular LL.B. course, for which purpose one must turn only to Rule 10.”.Having established that DU was bound to adhere to Rule 10, the judge went on to discern that class hours actually conducted by DU were far below the statutory minimum. Taking into consideration reliable evidence, the Court was constrained to consider only 230 hours of in-class lectures conducted by DU..“…it becomes apparent that the Faculty of Law has during the Concerned Semester, reliably conducted only 230 hours of class, which is approximately only 50% of the mandatory requirement under Rule 10 of the BCI Rules of conducting at least 450 hours of class during a semester of the regular unitary LL.B. course. .Needless to say, this is certainly a most regrettable state of affairs, especially for a leading centre of legal education in the capital of the country such as the Faculty of Law.”.This apart, the Court also expressed disapproval over manner in which attendance records were being maintained at DU..Glaring discrepancies in the original attendance records.It was noted that attendance was being marked in the most archaic fashion on loose attendance sheets that are maintained in a most disorganized manner..The attendance records revealed that the attendance of the students was not marked properly. Overwriting, use of different pens, and attendance marks by different persons were evident from the records produced before the court. The Court noted.“It is apparent that the students’ attendance has not been reliably marked by the concerned faculty members or even by the same person, and the attendance records are frequently edited ex-post facto….… I find merit in the Petitioners’ contention that even the attendance records as maintained by the Faculty of Law are manifestly arbitrary and utterly unreliable.”.DU cannot detain students for attendance shortage when it has not complied with BCI rules concerning mandatory hours .Ultimately, the Court’s decision rested on the following query..Can the Faculty of Law resort to Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education of the Bar Council of India Rules and detain its students studying in the LL.B. course on the ground of shortage of attendance, if it has itself not held the mandatory number of class hours prescribed under the said Rules?.Justice Palli answered this question in the negative, observing that,.“When a recognized law college does not comply with Rule 10, it essentially deprives its students of a reasonable chance to attend the necessary number of classes to meet the mandatory attendance criteria prescribed under Rule 12, since it does not afford the students an adequate opportunity to make up the shortfall in their attendance due to classes missed on account of valid concerns, or leaves taken under the legitimate expectation of having an adequate opportunity to attend future classes to compensate for their absence….… I find that it is only possible for students to plan their leaves and academic schedules when they have prior information about the number of classes that are going to be conducted and their approximate respective durations. In the absence of such information, academic schedules are too indeterminate, as a result of which students are unfairly disadvantaged since they are inevitably unable to avail any leave, for medical reasons or otherwise, without uncertainty or undue anxiety of falling short of the mandatory attendance criteria.”.In any case, the Court clarified that even if attendance is calculated on the basis on the classes actually held,.“…the Faculty of Law is not exonerated from the legal obligation to comply with the BCI Rules and hold the mandatory minimum number of class hours and working days as prescribed thereunder.”.Relief granted.In light of the Court’s observations, the May 7 notice was quashed with respect to the petitioners and other similarly placed students.In the interest of striking a balance between the students’ interests and ensuring adherence of BCI rules, the Court directed that extra classes be held for the petitioners to make up for the shortage of attendance and mandatory class hours. To this end, it was directed, “The Faculty of Law must, within 8 weeks, hold at least 139 hours of extra classes/tutorials for all those students desirous of attending the same and making up the shortfall in their attendance caused only due to the Faculty of Law’s failure to hold the mandatory minimum number of class hours in compliance with the BCI Rules.”.Students who were prevented from taking their end semester exams for attendance shortage should be allowed to write the supplementary exams. The declaration of supplementary exam results would be subject to these students attending the extra classes and thereby making up for their attendance shortage.As for students who were allowed to write their exams on interim orders of the Court, it was directed that their provisional results be released. However, this would also be subject to their attending the extra classes ordered by the Court..BCI directed to take immediate steps to ensure compliance of Rules.In the course of rendering judgement, Justice Palli also observed that law colleges frequently flouted BCI mandates, despite repeated observations that recognised centres of legal education must ensure meticulous compliance of BCI Rules. In this context, the Court remarked,.“The rampancy of such transgressions by law colleges is not only attributable to the educational institutes but also to the Bar Council of India, which has inevitably failed to exercise its powers of inspection under the BCI Rules and periodically inspect its recognized centres of legal education, in order to ensure their compliance with the said Rules. .There is no gainsaying that it is incumbent upon the Bar Council of India, which is a statutory body established under the Advocates Act, 1961, to not only promote and lay down the standards of legal education in the country but also to ensure their observance by recognized centres of legal education.”.This in turn has prompted the Court to also direct the BCI, to exercise its statutory powers under the Advocates Act, 1961 as also the Bar Council of India Rules, and take immediate steps to ensure the compliance of inter alia the Rules of Legal Education, by all its recognized centres of legal education..Read the judgement:
