Tag: Bar Council of India

In a recent development, Advocate Rahul Tiwari has unveiled the arbitrary eligibility criteria set by two prominent law colleges in Uttar Pradesh for faculty positions. The job advertisements explicitly stated that only candidates possessing a “2-year LLM” degree would be considered eligible for teaching roles. Advocate Rahul Tiwari, being deeply concerned about this issue, filed a Right to Information (RTI) request to investigate further. The aim was to gain clarity on the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules of Legal Education, particularly the provision that deems one-year LLM degree holders ineligible for teaching positions.

According to the response received through the RTI request, the law colleges’ eligibility criteria contradicted the existing rules established by the BCI. Rule 20 of Schedule 3, Part 4, of the Rules of Legal Education specifies that individuals holding a degree from a college recognized by the University Grants Commission or similar standard-setting bodies are eligible for teaching positions. The BCI’s 2016 notification, which rendered one-year LLM degree holders ineligible for teaching posts, is currently ineffective and not applicable.

Advocate Rahul Tiwari’s efforts through the RTI request have shed light on the flawed implementation of the eligibility criteria and its inconsistency with the BCI rules. This revelation serves as a reminder to educational institutions and governing bodies to ensure compliance with established regulations and refrain from imposing arbitrary requirements.

The BCI plays a crucial role in maintaining the standards of legal education across India. By clarifying the eligibility criteria for teaching positions, the BCI contributes to the overall quality of legal education and the professional development of law graduates. It is imperative for law colleges and universities to align their recruitment processes with the rules and regulations outlined by the BCI, guaranteeing a fair and transparent selection process.

This RTI revelation may have far-reaching implications, not only for the two law colleges in Uttar Pradesh but also for other educational institutions that may have similar eligibility criteria in place. It is expected that these colleges will review and amend their recruitment policies accordingly, ensuring that candidates with the appropriate qualifications are provided equal opportunities to pursue teaching careers.

Advocate Rahul Tiwari’s RTI filing sets a commendable example of an individual’s commitment to upholding the integrity and fairness of the educational system. Such actions contribute to the continuous improvement of legal education in India and support the pursuit of excellence in the legal profession.

Disclaimer: The information presented in this news article is based on the RTI response received by Advocate Rahul Tiwari. The views and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of the law colleges, BCI, Lexpeeps or any other relevant authorities.

Editor’s Desk:
Jayseeka Virdi ( News Stories Editor ) and Madhur Rathaur 

The Bar Council of India (BCI) is all set to scrap the Master Degree Course in Law of one-year duration introduced in India in 2013.

The BCI Notification

As per the notification issued by BCI on 2nd January 2021, Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020 will increase the duration of post-graduation (LLM) from 1 year to 2 years.

As per the rule , it is mandatory to have LLB/BA LLB as qualification to take admission in any Master’s degree in any specialized branch of LAW (LLM) offered in the Open System to any graduate, such as Business Law or Human Right, or International Trade Law. The rule made it mandatory to have a 3 year or 5 year LLB for taking admission to LLM course.

“Bar Council of India (either directly or through its Trust) may annually conduct a Post Graduate Common Entrance Test in Law (PGCETL) for admission in Master Degree course in Law in all Universities and until the PGCETL is introduced, the present system followed by respective Universities shall be followed. Once the BCI introduces PGCETL it shall be mandatory to admit the students from the merit list of the Test,” the Rule states.

The Rule further states that, An LLM degree obtained from a Foreign University, without an equivalent LLB degree shall not be equal to an Indian LLM degree.
A one-year LLM obtained from any foreign University is not equivalent to an Indian LLM degree. But if the degree is from a highly accredited Foreign University, this may entitle the person concerned to be appointed as a visiting professor at an Indian University. They should be there for at least a one-year LLM degree with one year of teaching experience as a Visiting Faculty/internee faculty/clinical faculty to get their LLM degree in India.

Besides LLM, the Rule also prescribe the ration of  student-teacher not exceeding 1:10 and maximum student strength of 20 in each branch of the specialization subject to a maximum of 50 students overall in the LLM program of the institution.

The Petition

This change by the BCI has recently been challenged in the Supreme Court by Tamanna Chandan Chachalani, a law student. In her petition, Ms Chachalani apart from questioning the rationale behind such a drastic change, claims that the change will adversely affect her future career and liberty of choosing quality education.

The petition also challenges the power of the BCI to make such a change, as the same can only be done by the University Grants Commission (UGC), and the BCI’s action is ultra vires of Section 7 (1) (h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 that mandates the BCI to promote legal education in India and to maintain it’s standards only in with the consultation with the Universities of India.

Reported by – Aishwarya Daftari | Edited by – Dakshita Dubey