Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court, on March 12, read down Clause 3.1 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Ph.D. Regulations, 2020, and removed the requirement of a two-year Master's degree in law for admission to the Ph.D. program.

The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy held that when UGC standards approve two sets of UG and PG qualifications, then, if by an admission regulation, the Universities mandate that they will admit candidates with only 3-year law or 5-year law alone or 1 year LLM or 2 Year LLM alone, it does not mean ‘higher standards’, but it but would be considered impinging upon the jurisdiction of the University Grants Commission and would accordingly be ultra vires.

The order was passed in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Suganya Jeba Sarojini who graduated in Law from Dr Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai, in May 2015.

She completed her Post Graduation - LL.M. (Human Rights) Degree from Amity Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Amity University, New Delhi in 2016 with CGPA 8.08.

She, then, cleared the National Eligibility Test for Assistant Professor (Law) in December 2018 and started working at the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University on a contract basis from July 2019. 

In 2020, the University framed Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University PhD Regulations, 2020 and under its Clause 3.1, only those who possess a ‘Two Year LLM’ alone were made eligible for admission to Ph.D. in the University.

Challenging the University's decision, Sarojini moved the high court. She argued that by the “Guidelines for Introduction of one-year LLM Degree Program, 2012”, UGC had recognised the one-year LLM programme and several Central and State Universities, National Law Schools and other premier Law Schools have already switched over to the same. 

The University opposed the petition arguing that both programmes are not equal. The UGC Regulation permitting one-year LLM Programme is only optional and not mandatory, the counsel representing the University contended. 

He asserted that the Bar Council of India regulations make it clear that one-year Master Degree programs in Law shall remain operational and valid for temporary period.

Highlighting that as per Clause-5 (b) of the Bar Council Regulations, the duration of LLM Degree shall be two years and Clause.6 seeks to abolish one-year Master Degree by stating that the same will be only valid upto the notification of the regulations, the counsel for the University submitted that it was only in compliance of the Bar Council Rules, the present regulations were framed.

Moreover, he argued that it is only the University, which has the jurisdiction to decide upon equivalence of degrees as per UGC's communication dated July 19, 2016.

On the issue, the counsel for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry submitted that even though the Bar Council proposed to make LLM a Two Year Programme, the said Rule was notified according to an undertaking before the Supreme Court of India in a connected matter and to date the rule position is that one year LLM Degree is valid.

The high court noted that one year LLM is a valid qualification as per UGC. It opined that the entire arguments of the University on equivalency by placing reliance on the Public Notice of the UGC dated July 19, 2016 was fallacious.

"The said communication will come into play if only the candidate does not possess the qualification as mandated by the UGC and is claiming some other qualification as equivalent," the bench clarified. 

Further, concerning the University's contention that it had prescribed higher qualifications, the division bench observed that though it is for the UGC or AICTE, as the case may be, to prescribe the minimum standards of eligibility for higher education, which has to be mandatorily observed by the Universities / States in matters of admission, it is open for Universities / States or any other authority to prescribe a higher standard.

However, if the University wants to prescribe higher standards that would mean greater standards in the qualifications of 10+2+5( or 3+3) +1 (or +2), such as having 60%, etc., and would not mean knocking off any or all of the qualifications from eligibility, the bench clarified. 

"The rule does not prescribe greater qualification, as the two-year LLM is not a higher qualification than the one-year LLM as both get the same degrees. Prescribing higher standards would be in ‘addition to’ and not in ‘derogation to'. It can be supplementing and not supplanting," the bench held. 

Furthermore, the bench observed that except for prescribing ‘two years', the impugned regulation was otherwise in order. 

The fallacy is severable and the regulation is workable even in the absence of the said words and is accordingly read down, the bench opined. 

Therefore, while allowing the petition, the bench read down the impugned Clause without the words ‘Two Years’.

Consequently, the bench directed the University to admit the petitioner in the Ph.D. programme pursuant to her application and allow her to pursue the research in accordance with their rules and procedure.

Case Title:Suganya Jeba Sarojini v. The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University and Another