Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13324
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
N.PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
DR.REGHUNATHAN K.R – Respondent
Con.Case(C) 1642 2023
N.PRAKASH(Party-In-Person), A.PARVATHI MENON, P.SANJAY, BIJU MEENATTOOR, INDIRA.K.P., PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH), P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM, KIRAN NARAYANAN, RAHUL RAJ P., AMRUTHA M. NAIR, MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A
Educational institutions must comply with Bar Council Regulations regarding the engagement of qualified legal professionals for teaching mandated courses.
Headnote:
Contempt - Education - Bar Council Regulations - The court emphasized adherence to Bar Council Regulations that require engaging senior legal practitioners for teaching, acknowledging the difficulty but mandating efforts to comply.
Fact of the Case:
A contempt case was filed by a law student against the college for not engaging senior legal practitioners for the mandatory course in Alternate Dispute Resolution as per Bar Council Regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that while the college had engaged a competent practitioner, more efforts were needed to comply with regulations requiring the engagement of senior professionals for teaching.
Issues: Whether the college's failure to engage sufficient senior legal practitioners for the course constituted contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the college must make every effort to comply with regulatory mandates concerning the engagement of qualified legal professionals in education.
Final Decision: The contempt case is closed with a directive for the college to engage more senior legal practitioners.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2023 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE(J)
This Contempt of Court Case is filed by a student of Sree Narayana Law College, Poothotta, alleging that while imparting compulsory legal paper – III, Alternate Dispute Resolution, the college is not engaging senior legal practitioners as mandated in the Bar Council Regulations.
2. We perused Bar Council Regulation and which mandates the engagement of senior legal practitioners for imparting the course. The petitioner submits that the college is only engaging teachers, who are incompetent to impart such course. This has been refuted by the learned Counsel for the respondent, and submits that Sri. Shaji Ramakrishnan, a well-known in ADR practice has been engaged by the college on many occasions. The petitioner also fairly submits that he is benefited by the classes of Sri. Shaji Ramakrishnan and he has no objection against the engagement of him as the legal practioner. However, it is submitted that many more such personnel should be engaged by the college. We understand the predicament of the college in finding such legal professionals, who would seldom willing to travel to the college during week days to engage in such a learning programme. However, we make it clear that the College should make every endeavour to see that such legal professionals are engaged in the light of the regulations and the college shall not discontinue engagement of such legal professionals.
Taking note of the submission that Sri.Shaji Ramakrishnan is engaged for imparting such a programme, the Contempt of Court Case is closed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE
1.3.2023 IN W.A.NO.382 OF 2023 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.BCI:D:158(LE:CIRCULAR NO.01/2020)
DATED 5.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CLASSES TAKEN IN THE SUBJECT OF ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION DURING THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 2022 AND JANUARY 2023 DATED NIL PUBLISHED BY THE CONCERNED TEACHER IN THE WHATSAPP GROUP Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CLASSES TAKEN IN THE SUBJECT OF ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION DURING THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2023 DATED NIL PUBLISHED BY THE CONCERNED TEACHER IN THE WHATSAPP GROUP Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF RULE 23 OF SCHEDULE II OF LEGAL EDUCATION RULES 2008 DATED NIL PROMULGATED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE SYLLABUS FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION WHICH IS A COMPULSORY PAPER IN THE 9TH SEMESTER OF
5 YEAR B.A.LL.B PUBLISHED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF RULE 10 OF BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RULES OF LEGAL EDUCATION PART IV Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.5.2023 IN CON.CASE (C)NO.930 OF 2023 Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
14.6.2023 IN CON.CASE (C)NO.1162 OF
2023 Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 7.7.2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MAIL ID OF SREE NARAYANA LAW COLLEGE POOTHOTTA AND ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 11.7.2023 SCHEDULING PRACTICAL EXAMINATION FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ROLE PLAY) ON 13TH, 14TH AND 15TH OF JULY, 2023 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R(1) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
08.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE EXAM CONTROLLER TO THE LAW COLLEGES ANNEXURE R(2) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.12.22 ISSUED BY THE EXAM CONTROLLER TO THE LAW COLLEGES ANNEXURE R(3) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE COLLEGE TO THE UNIVERSITY DATED
27.7.23 ANNEXURE R(5) COPY OF THE CASE FILE IN CON.CASE
1082/2023 ANNEXURE R(6) TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT SHEET OF THE PETITIONER DATED NILL ANNEXURE R(4) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)
24741/2023 DATED 08.08.2023 ANNEXURE R(1) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.12.22 ISSUED BY THE EXAM CONTROLLER TO THE LAW COLLEGES
