The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the Bar Council of India's functions under Section 7(1)(h) and (i) of the Advocates Act, and the prohibition of offering certain law courses without adhering to the BCI's standards.

JUDGMENT :

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents 6 and 7 with respect to S. No. (3) LL.B (General) (4) LL.B (Academic) of Law Programmes of the distance education Admission Notification No. DDE/S/009/2020-21 dated 07.08.2020 published in Tamil Daily News Paper, Daily Thanthi dated 09.08.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 6 and 7 to withdraw all the Two years LL.B (General) and Three Years LL.B (Academic) course certificates issued in past if any to change name of the Two years LL.B (General) and Three years LL.B (Academic) Courses.

1. The petitioner, a public interest litigant, has brought to the notice of the Court a matter of considerable significance. The Annamalai University offers courses leading to bachelor and master of laws degrees, diplomas and post-graduate diplomas by the distance education mode and the petitioner complains that such courses cannot be conducted without the approval of the Bar Council of India (the BCI), which is sovereign in the field of legal education in the country.

2. The BCI wholeheartedly supports the petitioner and contends that its functions and, therefore, powers extend not only to recognizing centres of legal education that offer law degrees that enable the holders thereof to enrol at the bar, but also any other legal education degrees, diplomas or even certificate courses. The BCI traces the provenance of its rule-making authority to Entries 66, 77 and 78 of List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution and says that it occupies the field completely in the realm of legal education. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu lends its weight to the BCI by reiterating that recognizing institutions that provide legal education is the exclusive domain of the BCI.

3. The University Grants Commission (the UGC) is a party, and its stand is that it no longer grants recognition to open or distance education in the field of law. A recent circular is cited to draw attention to the prohibition on open and distance education in law.

4. The lone adversary is the Annamalai University which asserts that the jurisdiction of the BCI is limited to recognizing law degrees that enable the holders thereof to enrol as advocates in terms of the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Advocates Act). Annamalai University says in its notices inviting applications for law courses, it carries a clear and categorical caveat that persons who receive its degrees and diplomas in law would not be entitled to enrol as advocates and practice law, and that such disclaimer takes these courses outside the jurisdictional control of the BCI. Annamalai University claims to be recognized by the UGC as regards its distance education law courses. Annamalai University also brings to the notice of the Court that several Universities across India offer distance legal education leading to degrees or diplomas and that such courses have been offered for several decades. In the absence of statutory authority over legal education, which does not enable enrollment as an advocate, Annamalai University contends that the writ petition is devoid of merit.

5. The principal parties were heard at length through learned counsel/ senior counsel. The petitioner was represented by Mr. S. Sankar, learned counsel; the BCI by Mr. S. Raghunathan, learned counsel; the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu by Mr. Pothiraj, learned counsel; the UGC by Mr. B. Rabu Manohar, learned counsel and Annamalai University by Mr. Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned counsel.

6. The petitioner set the ball rolling by referring to the expansive role played by the BCI under the Advocates Act. The Bar Council of India Rules were also adverted to and Rule 8 of the Rules of Legal Education in Part IV thereof was relied on to emphasise that the BCI had set standards for courses in law,