Withholding enrollment certificates from law graduates due to institutional financial issues is unjustified; non-recognition should not penalize students.

ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mt. Mitul Shelat with learned Advocate Mr.Harsh K. Raval on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda on behalf of respondent- State , learned Advocate Mr. M.J. Mehta on behalf of respondent no. 3, learned Advocate Mr. Manan Shah on behalf of respondent no.4, learned Advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit on behalf of respondents no. 5 to 9 and 11 to 13, learned Advocate Mr. Shivang Thacker on behalf of respondent no. 10, 15 and 17, learned Advocate Mr. Vikas Nair on behalf of respondent no. 14 and learned Advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi on behalf of respondent no. 16.

2. While the present petitions has been preferred inter alia for a direction to the Bar Council of India ( hereinafter referred to as “BCI” for short) to grant approval and regularize all grant-in-aid colleges of Gujarat for the students who were admitted through the university till academic year 2023-2024, having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties essentially it would appear to this Court that the grievance being voiced is that the students who have completed their LLB courses from the respective law colleges, are being denied their enrollment certificates on account of the BCI holding that the students have passed out from unrecognized law colleges.

3. It is the contention on behalf of the BCI that the Section 24 (1)(c)(iii) of the ADVOCATES ACT inter alia stipulates that enrollment would be given to students who have passed out the course of study from any university in India which is recognized for the purpose of the Act by the BCI. It is submitted that the University /the Institution, during the time when the students had prosecuted their law studies had not been granted appropriate recognition and hence, the students would not be entitled to their enrollment certificates.

4. It would appear in this regard that the non-recognition of the Institution, is not stated to be an inherent defect which the institution has and whereas upon perusing a communication by the BCI addressed to one M/s Siddharth Law College, Gandhinagar is perused, it would be apparent that the Bar Council of India has reserved with itself the right to condone deficiency with retrospective effect. To clarify vide the communication referred to hereinabove it would appear that the college concerned had approached the BCI for extension of provisional temporary approval of affiliation to the college in question for academic year 2023-24 and for regularization of admission made during the academic years 2009-10 to 2022-23. The Bar Council of India while approving the first part of the request i.e for the academic year 2023-24, has as far as the second part is concerned, i.e. from the year 2009-10 to the year 2022 regularized the affiliation on the ground that the college had deposited the inspection fees as well as other fees.

4.1 It is also pointed out by learned Advocate for the BCI that the fees, are with regard to certain inspections etc. which had to take place from the year 2009-2010 onwards and whereas since the same had not taken place, the BCI is precluded as per the Legal Education Rules from granting recognition to such Institutions.

4.2 The students from the said law college are not before this Court for obvious reason since the college has been granted retrospective recognition, students who have passed out from the said college have been granted enrollment.

5. It also appe