Back
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.MANIKUMAR AND V.M.VELUMANI, JJ.
B.Ashok - Petitioner
Vs.
The Secretary, Ministry of Union Law and Justice, Government of India – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.9533 of 2015, M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015
Decided On : 07.08.2015
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 19(1)(g), 254 – Advocates Act – Section 7(1)9h) and (l), 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia) or Section 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) – Writ of Certiorari – Quash Notification – Mr.B.Ashok, a practising Advocate of Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, has sought for a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the notification of the Secretary, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, the 4th respondent herein, dated 28.09.2013, G.O.(Ms)No.194, Law (LS) Department, and the consequential admission notification of the Registrar, Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, the 8th respondent herein, dated 04.06.2015 and consequently, entrust the functions stated in the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, either to the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India or on the National Legal Knowledge Council. – Held, Entry 66 List 1 under the XIIth Schedule provides for Coordination and Determination of Standards in Higher Education. Entry 25 of List III deals with broader subject, “Education”. – Needless to state that as per Section 254 of the Constitution of India, If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. – Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State – Perusal of G.O.Ms.No.194, Law (LS) Department, dated 03.06.2015, shows that the Government have only adopted the norms prescribed by the Bar Council of India, a creature of Advocates Act, 1961, prescribing the upper age limit for three year degree course and therefore, the contention of the learned Advocate General, on the basis of the State Act, cannot be countenanced. – Impugned notification of the Bar Council of India, and G.O.(Ms) Law (LS) Department, are quashed and the consequential admission notification of the Registrar, Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, is quashed, insofar as three year degree course is concerned. – Writ Petition Allowed
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
Mr.B.Ashok, a practising Advocate of Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, has sought for a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the notification of the Secretary, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, the 4th respondent herein, dated 28.09.2013, G.O.(Ms)No.194, Law (LS) Department, dated 03.06.2015 and the consequential admission notification of the Registrar, Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, the 8th respondent herein, dated 04.06.2015 and consequently, entrust the functions stated in the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, either to the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India or on the National Legal Knowledge Council. The impugned notification of the Bar Council of India, dated 28.09.2013, G.O.(Ms)No.194, Law (LS) Department, dated 03.06.2015 and the admission notification of the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, dated 04.06.2015, are extracted hereunder:
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA NOTIFICTION
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2013
Report regarding Clause-28, Schedule-III, Rule-11 of the Rules of Legal
Education-2008
Resolution No.231/2013.--The Bar Council of India vide Resolution No. 182/2013 accepted the report submitted by the Hon'ble Member Mr. S.Prabakaran in regard to Clause 28, Schedule-III, Rule-11 of the Rules of Legal Education-2008.
A copy of report dated 28.7.2013 along with Resolution of the Bar Council of India in this regard has been published in the Gazette of India vide Extraordinary, Part-III, Section-4, Published by Authority, No.251, New Delhi, Saturday, September 28, 2013. Thereafter Hon'ble Member has made few corrections and deleted three lines of the first page of this report.
He has substituted ”limine”, word in place of “single line” in the report in Para-3 of first page and he has further deleted three lines which are reproduced below:
“The Hon'ble Supreme Court although dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by Madras High Court, but, Hon'ble supreme Court has not
passed any speaking order.”
The Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 29th September, 2013 vide item No.331/2013 considered the modified report dated 28.9.2013 submitted by Hon'ble Member, Mr. S.Prabakaran in regard to Clause-28, Schedule-III, Rule-11 of the Rules of Legal Education-2008 and passed the following Resolution:-
Resolution No.231/2013:
Council has considered the Secretary's Note as well as modified report submitted by the Hon'ble Member, Mr.S.Prabakaran in regard to Clause-28, Schedule-III, Rule-11 of the Rules of Legal Education-2008. The modified\ report submitted by Hon'ble Member, Mr.S.Prabakaran is accepted and office is directed that this modified report be Gazetted in Gazette of India. Earlier report dated 28.7.2013 along with resolution which was published in Gazette of India vide: Extraordinary Part-III, Section 4, September 28, 2013 stands withdrawn.
The modified report dated 28.9.2013 is given hereunder:
Sir,
As per Legal Education Rules-2008, Clause-28 (Rule of the Legal Education Rules regarding maximum age for admission into law courses) has been challenged before various High Courts where interim orders to take admission has been given by the Courts and the same has been filed before the Supreme Court and the T.P. has been allowed as T.C. But it is still pending.
The service has not been completed because the Respondents' addresses were not found. The same had been placed before the Council which decided to publish their names in the National Newspaper. In the publication, expenditure is too high.
In the meanwhile, the Madras High Court has given a detailed order in the matter of M.Santosh Antony Vareed (W.P.No.14877/2009) and the aggrieved petitioner had filed the SLP No.138346/2010 against the said order before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has dismissed in limine.
The order dated 11.03.2013:--
“Upon hearing council, the co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
