IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 06.08.2021 Pronounced on : 13.08.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.No.11716 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.14401, 14408 and 14409 of 2020 B.Ramkumar Adityan .. Petitioner Vs

1. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, No.122/C, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 009.

3. The Secretary, Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi-110 002.

4. Joint Secretary, Distance Education Bureau (DEB), University Grants Commission (UGC), Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.

5. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104.

6. The Registrar, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar – 608 002.

7. Director, Directorate of Distance Education, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar – 608 002.

8. The High Court of Judicature At Madras, Rep. by the Registrar General, Chennai – 600 104.

(R8 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 27.11.2020 made in WP.11716/2020) .. Respondents 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.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankar For respondents : Mr.P.Ayyasamy, CGSPC for R1 Mr.P.Muthukumar, for R2 Mr.S.R.Raghunathan Assisted by Mr.K.V.Kartik Subramanian Mr.Vigneshwar Elango Ms.M.Mathangi for R3 Mr.B.Rabu Manohar for R4 Mr.J.Pothiraj for R5 Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, Advocate General Assisted by Mr.V R Kamalanathan for R6 and R7 Mr.V.Vijaya Shankar for R8 ORDER [Order of the Court was made by SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J 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). A