“Much-needed therapy to cure maladies in legal education”: Delhi HC directs BCI to form special expert teams to conduct surprise visits to colleges

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to form special expert teams to conduct surprise visits to colleges that lack minimum infrastructure and adequate facilities, and also, directed it to upload inspection reports of law colleges on its website within one month of the inspection.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further directed that if any colleges are found to be lacking in minimum infrastructural facilities during such inspections, the BCI must take immediate steps to close such colleges, and opined that this is a much-needed therapy that should be introduced to cure the maladies that legal education is suffering from.

Justice Singh stated that the Bar Council of India (BCI), as the regulator of legal education in India, has the authority and responsibility to inspect law colleges across the country, and that "it is high time that all stakeholders led by the BCI, including Senior Advocates, Academicians, and even former Judges of Supreme Court/High Courts, may be requested to take on the task of reforming the status of Legal Education in India."

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking directions to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIU) to allocate 110 seats to the Ideal Institute of Management & Technology for the BA LLB Five Years' Integrated Course for Academic Sessions 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23.

The petitioner Institute contended that since the academic session 2014-15, it had been granted affiliation approval by the BCI for 120 seats, similarly, as per approval dated July 15, 2022, BCI had granted it 120 seats for the academic session 2022-23, and in no particular space, norms had been prescribed by the BCI in it. It was further contended that a Centre of Legal Education academic building, according to the BCI, should have separate classrooms of 60 students for each section, rooms for tutorial work, a moot courtroom, a common room for male and female students, and adequate library/reading space.

It was further contended that the space available with the institute was sufficient for 100 students, especially when the entire strength (100%) of seats was very unlikely to be filled, and even in previous years, the strength was never up to the maximum. Furthermore, the petitioner institute contended that even with the most stringent approach, the space available to the Institute (excluding the basement) was significantly greater than the 85 seats granted by the GGSIU, therefore, the GGSIU's refusal of commensurate seats was illegal and arbitrary.

GGSIU, on the other hand, claimed that the institute lacks adequate space to accommodate 110 students because, according to the approved/sanctioned building plan of the premises as sanctioned by the DDA, the institute can only have an intake of 85 students. It also stated that the Institute's proposal to use the basement area to make up the deficit was not permissible under the current rules and guidelines.

GGSIU further stated that the basement is not counted in the FAR, nor is there approval from the Fire Authorities and other statutory bodies for use of the basement in accordance with the use premises, i.e., education/academic purposes. Therefore, it argued that permission could not be granted to the institute for the intake of additional seats.

The single judge bench stated that another menace afflicting the Indian education sector is “commercialization” and one example of profiteering in this noble profession is enrolling additional students in each new batch without upgrading the existing infrastructure. "Therefore, any attempt to commercialize education, particularly legal education, while jeopardizing the quality of education must be condemned and frowned upon," Court said. 

Noting that the petitioner institute had failed to demonstrate that it had received necessary clearance from the statutory bodies for the usage sought, which in this case is the DDA and MCD under clause 8(5)(d), Court ordered that until and unless the sanction is granted for the desired purpose, the petitioner is not allowed to use the same for any other purpose except car parking.

Conclusively, the court held, “pursuant to previous interim orders issued by the High Court students were admitted in excess of the sanctioned capacity in previous academic sessions, and therefore, regardless of the legality of the additional seats claimed by the Institute for previous academic sessions this Court does not intend to interfere with their admission in the best interests of the students already admitted and other stakeholders.”

“Thus, any observations made herein shall have no detrimental effect whatsoever on the students already admitted in previous academic sessions”, the court added.

While disposing of the petitions,  court directed the respondents to maintain the status quo regarding the already admitted students in the previous academic sessions in compliance with the past orders of the high court.

Furthermore, the court stated that no benefit will be granted for the Academic Session 2022-23, and the petitioner institute will only be able to admit students to the 85 seats already allotted by the respondent university in its BA LLB course.

Case title: New Millennium Education Society & Anr. v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.