"It is better to produce less number of well trained law degree holders than to produce a large number of ill-trained or untrained law degree holders" Observed Honourable Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar while speaking for the Bench in C.M.Balaraman v. Registrar, Osmania University, Hyderabad and others [AIR 1998 Andhra Pradesh 105]. The present writ petition has been filed by the law students complaining of appalling standards in imparting training in the College despite the prescriptions of the Bar Council of India.

2. The petitioners are the students of the five years LLB Course and three years LLB Course of the Government Law College, Ernakulam functioning under the Mahatma Gandhi University. Their common complaint is that the Semester examinations of the University are often scheduled without being preceded by sufficient number of teaching hours. It is asserted that there was only 128 hours of study in the X Semester of the five years Course and 135 hours of study in the VI Semester of the three years Course. The petitioners rely on Ext.P2 attendance register of the College to drive home the point that Semester examination sans study hours is totally unjustified.

3. The petitioners rely on Ext.P8 notification issued by the University to the effect that each Semester should consist of a minimum of 450 contact hours distributed over 90 working days. The relevant clause reads thus:-

Each Semester consisting of a minimum of 450 contact hours distributed over 90 working days, inclusive of examination days within 18 five-day academic weeks. The Rules of Legal Education framed by the Bar Council of India as regards the conduct of classes in the Semester System for the LLB Course are also relied on by the petitioners to buttress their contention.

4. Another disturbing feature highlighted by the petitioners is the overlapping of the Final examinations of the X Semester and the Supplementary examinations of the III Semester. It is stated that many of the students of the X Semester have to write the Supplementary examinations of the III Semester as they had not been successful earlier. I prima facie felt that the examinations have been scheduled unmindful of the plight of the students who have to sit for Supplementary and Final examinations. There was paucity of materials to come to a conclusion that sufficient number of lecture hours, tutorials, moot court and seminars were held before the examinations. I therefore suo motu impleaded the Bar Council of India as an additional respondent in the writ petition and issued an interim direction to the Controller of the Examinations of the University. The interim direction obliged the Controller to take a decision on the question of re-scheduling of the examinations within a period of three days. It is now reported that the Controller has accordingly postponed the VI and X Semester regular examinations to a date after 15.10.2015 which is a sigh of relief for the petitioners and other students. There is still an apprehension in the mind of the petitioners about the possible clash of the Supplementary examinations of the IV Semester with the Final examinations. I am sure that the Controller will phase the examinations in such a way that sufficient gap is given between the examinations for it to be taken comfortably.

5. I would however like to add a few words about the legal education in the State since several writ petitions are filed every year on the eve of examinations for re-scheduling. I heard Mr.Jennis Stephen, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr.Varghese M.Easo, Standing Counsel of the University and Mr.Rajit, Standing Counsel of the Bar Council of India. I also heard Mr.Deepu Thankan, Advocate as Amicus curiae who deserves a rich encomium for the able assistance rendered to this Court and also produced the relevant notifications.

6. The Bar Council of India is constituted under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short] and is a body corporate having perpectual success