Karnataka High Court: While considering the petitions filed under Article 226 and 227 of the High Court by petitioners who were aggrieved of rejection of their admission to LL.B. course by the BCI, the Single Bench of L. Narayana Swamy, J held that the action on the part of BCI is just, sound and proper and is in accordance with the law.
The petitioners in the present case were denied admission to LLB course on one or the other grounds. This action was alleged to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners had questioned (i) the authority of the BCI in deciding qualification for LLB and (ii) justification of rejection of admission for the non-compliance of eligibility criteria.
This Court, while analysing the facts and circumstances of the case, in light of the powers and functions of the BCI, dismissed the petitions and upheld the power of Bar Council in regulating the eligibility criteria and said that the qualification obtained by Open University or private study, is not a qualification for the purpose of consideration. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s observance in Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bar Council of India,1989 Supp (2) SCC 91 to hold that the Bar Council of India is concerned with the standard of the legal profession and education in the country and is thereby empowered to set regulations for the same. [Sudha Rani K v. State of Karnataka, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 7358, decided on 16.12.2016]
