Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 4625
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K. GANGULY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Dr. G. Krishnamurthy
Versus
The Vice Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University & Others
Writ Petition No.22399 of 2008
Decided on: 15-12-2008
For the Petitioner: ------
For the Respondents: Raja Kalifulla, Govt. Pleader.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to maintain proper standards of legal education, as highlighted by the recommendations of the 14th Law Commission Report, Shri M.C. Setalvad, and Chief Justice Ahmadi.
Headnote:
Legal Education - Maintenance of Standards - 14th Law Commission Report, Recommendations of Shri M.C. Setalvad, Chief Justice Ahmadi - M.L. Degree Course - Dr. Ambedkar Law University - [14th Law Commission Report, Recommendations of Shri M.C. Setalvad, Chief Justice Ahmadi]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a public interest litigation regarding poor maintenance of standards in the M.L. Post Graduate Degree Course in the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. The court found that no standard was maintained in the M.L. Degree Course and directed the Director of Legal Studies to ensure proper standards of teaching and holding of classes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the M.L. Degree Course in the university lacked proper standards and directed the university to depute a team of officials to assess the situation and improve the standards of legal education.
Issues: Poor maintenance of standards in the M.L. Degree Course, lack of qualified teachers, and low level of legal education in the state.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to maintain proper standards of teaching and holding of classes in the M.L. Degree Course and highlighted the recommendations of the 14th Law Commission Report, Shri M.C. Setalvad, and Chief Justice Ahmadi regarding the improvement of legal education.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to improve the standards of legal education in the M.L. Degree Course.
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.
1. On the last occasion, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and hence the matter is listed today for dismissal. Today also, nobody appears for the petitioner at the time of call. But since this is a public interest litigation, we cannot dismiss the writ petition for the non-appearance of the petitioner.
2. This writ petition has been filed complaining of poor maintenance of standards in the M.L. Post Graduate Degree Course in the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. The initial complaint is that no classes have been conducted for the M.L. Degree Course.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6 by one S. Mohamed Abdul Khader, who claims to be the Principal of Dr. Ambedkar Law College. Strangely, the counter has also been filed in respect of the Chief Secretary to the State Government, even though the name of the Chief Secretary has been deleted from the list.
4. In answer to the contention that no classes have been conducted for the M.L. Degree Course, it is stated in paragraph 13 of the counter that classes have been held on two days, viz. on 9. 2008 and 9. 2008, but thereafter, the classes could not be held because of the student unrest. In paragraph 10 of the counter, which has been filed today, it has been stated that there were mistakes in the question papers, but as soon as the mistakes were detected, the Professor concerned who is in charge of the branch of law on which the examination was held corrected the mistake by going to the examination hall before the students started writing their answers, and the mistakes are claimed as typographical errors.
5. The question papers have been annexed to the typed set of papers and we are extracting hereinbelow the question papers which have been annexed to the typed set:
"MODERN CONCEPTS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PROPERTY LAW PART-A
1. Explain the theory of property.
2. Desclibe the different mode of acquirisition and kinds of ownership.
3. Analyse the importance and essentials of possesion. PART-B
4. Explain the relationship between property and law.
5. Explain Person in fact ed in law.
6. Different between owership and possession." "MODERN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PART-A
1. Dicuss the absolute grounds for Refunal of Regintater of hade maks and Relature Coumers for refunal for Regstratum of trade Maks.
2. Infingement of hade marks and the remidier available Discuss.
3. Passing off actien – Discuss in the scope and remedier available. PART-B
1. Well lenoun hehade mark
2. Transborde Repartaitin
3. TRIPS Agreement"
It appears that most of the questions do not make any sense, apart from the fact that the questions contain several gross grammatical mistakes. Further, the person who has set the questions has not at all applied his mind to the subject on which the questions have been set and the questions have been set in a very casual manner and without any application of mind. If this is the standard of M.L. Degree in the University, this Court is shocked and dismayed about the alarming state of affairs. The question papers are clearly indicative of the fact that no seriousness is attached in the matter of conduct of the course for the M.L. Degree and no seriousness is reflected in the matter of setting the question papers for the said examination and we do not know how the candidates who are appearing in the said examination are assessed or degrees conferred on them.
6. In the additional typed set which has been filed in this case, we find that several students of the M.L. Degree Course of Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College have made a representation to the Secretary, Law Department, Government of Tamil Nadu to the effect that the lecturers who are taking M.L. Classes do not possess the requisite qualification and they are unable to explain the subjects taught by them. It is also stated that there is no properly qualified lecturer in any branch in the existing law college to take th
