Maahi Neil Jaipal v. University of Delhi

1. Present letters patent appeals have been filed challenging the judgment dated 30th September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 12607/2024 and W.P.(C) 12283/2024, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellant, challenging the decision of respondent no.1/university to withhold admissions under supernumerary quota in the Foreign Student’s Registry and letter dated 20th May, 2024 issued by respondent no.2/Bar Council of India (BCI) were dismissed on the ground that there does not exist any sanction for supernumerary seats and educational institutions cannot be directed to disobey the binding regulatory authority which govern such institutions.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that as the respondent no.1/university published its bulletin in April 2024 inviting applications from foreign nationals, an indefeasible right got created in favour of the appellant because the contents of the bulletins or brochures have force of law and binding effect. He states that the university ought to have taken necessary approvals from BCI, University Grants Commission (UGC), etc, before issuing its bulletin.

3. Even otherwise, he contends that legal education is not entirely and exclusively governed by the BCI. He submits that Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) prescribes the functions of BCI and contends that BCI governs standards of legal education and recognition of degree in law only for the purpose of enrolment as advocate.

4. He further contends that the provisions of the Act are in furtherance of regulating practice of law in Courts or before Tribunals and the powers of BCI are confined to the limited extent of indirectly regulating the legal studies of those students who wish to practice law. He submits that the Supreme Court has made a clear distinction between ‘pursuing law’ and ‘practicing law and held that one can pursue law without any need to fulfil the requirements of BCI.

5. He points out that the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 was enacted under Entry 66 of List I to make provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in universities. He contends that it is the UGC which has the powers to regulate university education. He states that Section 4(2)(a) of Delhi University Act, 1922 stands independent of and co-exist with the right of BCI to recognise law degrees for the purpose of enrolment as advocate and BCI cannot affect the right of Delhi University in granting valid and effective degrees to those students who do not wish to enrol and practice law in future.

6. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench in O.N. Mohindroo vs. Bar Council of Delhi (1968) 2 SCR 709, wherein it has been held as under:-

I. As the power of legislation relating to those entitled to practise in the Supreme Court and the High Courts is carved out from the general power to legislate in relation to legal and other professions in Entry 26 of List III, it is an error to say, as the High Court did, that the Act is a composite legislation partly falling under Entries 77 and 78 of List I and partly under Entry 26 of List III. (emphasis supplied)”

7. He also contends that the guidelines dated 29th July, 2021 issued by UGC, mandating that higher education institutions create up to 25% supernumerary seats for international students, have a binding effect on the universities, including respondent no.1. He contends that the impugned letter dated 20th May, 2024 issued by BCI amounts to overriding, overruling or vetoing the policy decision formulated by UGC, which cannot be permitted in accordance with law.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant, this Court is of the view that the submission of the appellant that the role of BCI in regulating legal education is limited to the purpose of enrolment as an advocate is untenable in law. Sections 7(h) and 7(i) of the Act are reproduced hereinbelow:-

9. No doubt, the Supreme Court has made a distinction between ‘pursuing law’ and ‘practicing law’ but such distinction has not been applied in the context of the regulating powers of BCI. In fact, till now no Court has held that the BCI is not empowered to regulate legal education or that such power is limited.