THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL Iu RISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 600 OF 2015 IN THE MATTEROF SHAMNAD BASHEER UNION OF INDIA SLORSI I. 1 ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . 2 BAR OF INDIA ADVOCATE EOR- RESPONDENT NO. 2 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA -- ARDHENDUMAULI KUMAR PRASAD . THE SURREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION .WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 600 OF 2015. IN THE MATTER QF: - SHAMNAO BASHEER VERSU5. - UNION OF INDIA ORS. MITIONAL AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE . No. 2 BAR COUNCIL QFINDIA I, Ashok Pandey, Shri S. L. Pandey, aged about 42 years, Joint Secretary, Bar Council of India, having its office at 21,- Rouse Avenue, InstitutionalArea, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi 110001, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under? I 1. I am working on the post of Joint Secretary, Bar Council of India and as such well acquainted and conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case on the basis of records thereof ?as well as the other affairs of the Bar Council of India and duly authoriied, as such competent to swear this affidavit. - 2. That I have gone through the contents of the memo of Writ Petition under reply and have fully understood the same and at the very outset submit that the issues raised by the Writ I Petitioneris ofggrave ?concern and require. consideratiOn by this Hon?ble Court. 3. That it is respectfully submitted that this Additional Af?davit is being ?led for the purpose Of clarifying the pOsition of'the 5 . Asa? answering respondent in conducting the Common Law i i r? Admission T?st in short), which is at present being conducted by various National Law Universities in short) on I'rotational basis as per mutual understanding between the participating NLUs and also for the purpose of I statutory role of. the answering respondent visLa?vis- Legal Education in the Country. 4. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant Bar Council of India will ?le an apprOpriate application in doe course in Dtsha Papcha/ Union of India Civil No. 551/2018] as the Ministry of has no role concerning conduction of entrance examination of National Law Universities which is the prerogative of the Bar Council of india. 5. - That it is humbly stated and submitted that the?Advocates Act, 1961 has conlierredl?upon the answering role of regulating Standards of. Legal Education and to' frame the Rules in this regard. and also the power to inspect and recognize universities imparting Legal Education. 6. That it is respectfully submitted that in another matter Dis/7a Pancha/ 1/ Union of India Civil No. 551/2018], this Hon?ble Court passed an interim order and held as follows ?13. We have dea/t with the matter only from the stand point of how best to compensate the candidates who lost valuah/e i, The body which was given the taisk of conducting the 5. . 3 examination was duty bound to ensure facilities of uninterrupted UPS and generator facility. The record indicates complete inadequacy on that point. We therefore direct Union of india the Min/stn/ of Homan Resources and Development to appoint a Committee to look into the matter and take appropriate remedial measures including penal action, if any, against the body which was entrusted with the task. The committee so constituted shall also look into the aspect of ha ving completely satisfacton/ arrangements in future so that - no such instances are repeated or reoccur in coming years._ We must also observe that the idea of entrusting the task of monitoring thereonduct of entire exam/nation to oV??erent Law Universities every year also needs to be ire-Visited, The agreement with the examination conducting body. which was placed on record indicates that as against the amount made over to such _Iexamination conducting body, the fees charged from the candidates are far in excess. The committee shall bestow consideration to all these'aspects after ha Vina inputs from such sources as it may jeem atom, including Bar Council of India and make a detailed Egprt to this Court within three months from today; ?7 That the answering respondent Bar Council of. India considered the. matter in its meeting of Genera! Counqu and the Council oecided to seek permission of this Hon?ble court to constitute a body of experts under the Chairmanship of a former Judge of Hon?ble Supreme Court, at least two sitting Chief Justices of_ High Courts Some? Sitting and.fo?rmer Judges of High Courts, Vice? Chancellors of 'and other reputed Universities, some not?d Sr. Advocates of the Country, eminent jurists, member of various Bar Councils; In- this way the irregularities as complained of by the petitioner herein would be effectively redressed. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Advocates Act, 1961 has conferred upon the answering respondent the role A of regulating. Standards of Legal Education and to frame the 0 Rules in this regard and also the power to inspect and recognize universities imparting Legal Education. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that the answering Respondent is expressly and speci?cally empowered under the Act to regulate the legal, Education in the Country under sections 7 and 49 of the Act. The relevant provisions are as under 7, Functions of ear owner! offndia (Z) The functions of the Bar council of more shall be. I t7. To promote Iegat education and to la down standards of such education in consultation with I the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Comets i. To recognrke Universities whose degree in law soaf/ be a qua/Wooten fer enrolment - as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State Bar Counciis to I I Visit and inspect Universities in accordance with StiCi? directions as it me give in this hehahf (is) to recognize on a reciorocai basis foreign quaii?cations in law obtained outside indie for the purpose of admission as advocate under this act. generai "newer ef the Ear Commit of indie to make rates? (I) The Bar Council of indie may make roies for discharging its functions under this Act anof, in I hereto/ax; such ru/es may prescribe I (at) 3the 'ininimum qua/insation reqwted for admission to a course of degree in liaw in any recogn/Zeo? University.? I . I The standards of iega/ edecation to he observed, by university in india and the inspection of Universities for that purpose. I e. The foreign qualifications in few obtained by person other than cit/Zens of indie which shaii be recognised for the purpose of admission as an advocate under this Act. 10. That in vievv of the above provisions, it is evident that the answering respondent is solely responsible for maintaining the standards of legaleducation and is also sole concerned statutory organization having interest in the legal education we i; and profession of law. The function to conductsuch Admission 331? 9 '5 ea? ff Tests (LL.B With Bar COUl?lCll of India and the . iaee%% s' f? i Ministry of Human Resource Development, Union of India has absolutely no concern with such matters. 11. That it is evident that the answering Respondent has been conferred sole responsibility under the statute for regulating- Legal Education in the Country. The perusal of the foregoing I provisions makes it evident that it is the answering I respondent, which is responsible for promoting legal I . education aod-?for laying down standards of legal educationin consultation with 'the universities imparting legal education and the State Bar Councils. [Section . 12. That it is also evident that the answering respondent is - responsible for visiting, either by itself orthroggh the State . . .Bar Councils, and recognizing the Universities imparting legal education, and only the degrees in law awarded by the such- Universities, recognized by the answering-respondent, shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate. [Section Presently'the visiting teams are headed by some experienced former Hon?ble judges of some high courts. and it alsovconsists of two professors of law and other subjects. 13. That it is the answering respondent, which has been entrusted I the duty of recognizing the law degrees obtained from outside . India on reciprocal basis for the purpose of admission as .V. . i? W135: ?5 . policy of the Government. [Section 7? i? i} i? if? advocate under? the act, which a matter of important foreign gigs-1%iia . . 3? 14.: That the answering respondent has been entrusted the duty . .. to prescribe the minimum qualification required for admission 15. to a course of degree in law in any recognized University {Section esuxam and to, prescribe standards of legal education to be observed by university in India and the. inspection of Universities for that purpose. [Section cameo] and to prescribe foreign quali?cations in law - obtained by person other than citizens of India which shail be recognized for the purpose of admission as an adeCate tinder 3 this Act [Section That for the aforesaid purpose, the Statute has provided for - constitution?oftegal Education Committee under section 10(2)(b) of the Act, which reads as under I w. Conefifutio? of committees other than. discipiieary comrnittees}? (Z) ,4 State Bar Council shall censz?ltute the following- standing committees, name/?e an' executive committee consisting of ?ve members elected by the Council atom amoogsr its - members; i an enrolment committee of three members elected by the (pencil form amongst its members. (2) The Bar Council of India shall the follomhg.' sz?andriig namel an executive committee consisting of nine members elected by the Comm? ?rom amongst its members; 16. 17. a iegai education committee of ten members, of Whom five sbaii be persons eiecteo? by the Cooncii from amongst its members and she// be persons co-opteo? by the Cooncii? mic are not members tbereoState Bar Councii and the Bar Council of [note may I constitute from amongst its members soc/7 other committees as it ma deem necessary for the porposes of carrying out the pro visions of this Act That it is evident on perusal of the provision of section 10 of the Act that the Legal Education Committee comprises of the ?ve members, who represent the advocates being members elected from amongst the advocates and ?ve members, who are non-members. having signi?cant interest in legal education. At present, the Legal Education Committee is headed by a former Hon?ble Judge of this Hon?ble Court, 7 sitting Hon?ble Judges of'different High Courts, one former Chief Justice of a High Court, 2 former Judges of different High Courts, 4 Vice?Chancellors of National Law Universities, 3. Law Dean, 4 Senior Advocates of Supreme Court and four other members from amongst the law educationists. A That the answering respondent has been successfully conducting the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) under the orders passed-By this Hon?bie Court and has appointed Committee?of experts to conduct the same since year 2011, there has been?no complaint from any corner With regard to I . examinationa'nd that the answering respondent Bar Council-Of g: 18. 19. fairness or impartiality of these Exams. The monitoringf': committee of All India Bar Examination is headed by a former I I I Judge of this l-Jon?bl? Court and it also consists of noted academicians, The elected members ofBar. Council of'India .. are. not involved withthe process of monitoring the said I I. __.India has the iequisite expertise as it has been conducting? AIBE without any major hiccups until now. That it is also. relevant to mention here that judiciary has the foremost interest in the standard of legal education as well as . legal profession, as Ultimately the purpose Of?having a legal. . . system in place is to serve the cause of justice and to I dispense the same effectively. That it is most humbly submitted that regarding usage. of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, a?Constitotion Bench of this Hon?ble Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v' Union ofino?ia [(1998) 4 SCC 409] has held as follows a. "56. As a matter oz: fact, the observations on which emphasis has been pieced us from the Un/on Carbide? case, A. R. Antuiay?s case and .Deihi Jud/t/ai Services Association case I I (shore) go to show that they do not strictly speaking come 3 into any con?ict with The observations of the majoritymade in - .Prem Chand Gargis case (Supra). It is one thin to 55' that .. .. ibrq?ibitions or (imitations in a stag-grail I. i. I. I '72. the war of eatersise: of iqrisdiction .9eger4rticie' 20. w. . to do comglete iustice? between the gar-ties in the I endin use a? matter ariain out of that Statute but quite a differeht thing to say that while exercising - I iurisdiction 'wzder Article. 1,3421 this 50m. alto__ ether ionore thirsuhstantive provisions of a statute, deaiing with the subiect egg pass orders . concerning an issue which can he settled only through I a mechanism ?grescrihed ih anotherfstatgte. This Court a did not lay $0 in union Carhideis case either expressly or .. i {indication and on the contrary it has been held that the wax court Wi/i take note of the express prey/stons of any substantive statutory iaw and regulate the exercise of its power and discretion accoroingiy. We are, therefore, unabie to. persuade ourselves to agree with the observat/bns of me .. .. Bench in WI. MIShrais case that the low iaid down hy the .I I majorih/ in Pram Chand Gary?s case is "no ionger a good iaw?. That in view of. the facts narrated herein above, it is most I humbly submitted that the Hon?ble Court may consider the issues raised bythe petitioner and suggest and evolve-a - procedure and issue necessary guidelines for conducting soch. admission tests for entry into law courses. That the contents of the present additional af?davit is being. - ?led for clarifying; the legal positiOn governing the education I of law without making any averment in' respectvof the dispotes H. and contentio'ns'raised by the petitioner in respect of mal-- .. administration and other such issues of irregularities in . conducting QLAT. That the answering respondent craves leave- of this Hon?ble Court to file further affidavits/documents if and when required or directed. 22. That the facts stated: herein above are true to my- knowledge as derived from the records of the case and no part of it is false and no material facts have been concealed therefrom. 23. That the ann?xure is true copy of its respective originalVERIFICATION 3.3.1, the abovenamed deponent do hereby' verify that the facts U. in the above affidavit are true to my knowledge. No part of same is false and nothing material has been concealed its? ?4 ?Mi therefrom. . Veri?ed at New Delhi on this 28th of September, 2018. artes?rEe all KUMAR. OF - eerie .- NOTARY. oereiza-esrso P1 ONENT- . - I COURT OF w? cameras Tare trit- cameras Exemwso warmer} DEEQSE I Filed by: DELHE ON LI KUMAR '12) :3 BEFORE Mast .._._irg_iasgrarise.? EXECUTNE avatars reassess. A-52, Sector 201301 c? arePRESENCE ADVOCATE. FOR RESPONDENT No. CODE: 1800f.