Naveen Kumar Sewan v. Bar Council of India

Delhi High Court · 01 Dec 2017 · 2017:DHC:8637
Vibhu Bakhru
W.P.(C) 8395/2016
2017:DHC:8637
administrative appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that candidates admitted to LL.B. before the 2014 amendment to the Bar Council ordinance are entitled to enrolment under the unamended rules, dismissing other reliefs including compensation.

Full Text
Translation output
, - -i $-14 &1^ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 8395/2016
NAVEEN KUMAR SEWAN Petitioner
Through: Mr Jaswant Man, Advocate alongwith Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr Preet Pal Singh and Ms Priyam Mehta, Advocates for BCI.
Mr Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for R-2.
Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal with Ms Slomita Rai, Advocates for Delhi
University, y AND J/ W.P.(C) 8471/2017 and CM No. 34939/2017
ANUPAM MAURYA Petitioner
Through: Ms Abha Sharma and Mr B. Ram, Advocates.
VERSUS
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr Preet Pal Singh and Ms Priyam Mehta, Advocates for BCI.
Mr T. Singhdev, Ms Amandeep Kaur, Mr Tarun Verma, Ms Michelle
Biakthansangi and Ms Puja Sarkar, Advocates for R-2.
Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal with Ms Slomita Rai, Advocates for Delhi
University.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
01.12.2017
ORDER

1. The learned counsel appearing for. respondent no.1 has referred to a 2017:DHC:8637 '.J communication dated 30.11.2017 issued by Bar Council of India (respondent no. 1) to the Bar Council of Delhi referring to the candidates whose enrolment is in issue - which this Court is informed includes the petitioners in these cases - and communicating its decision that the candidates who have taken admission to LL.B. Course before the amendment to the ordinance notified on 14.11.2014, would be permitted to be enrolled in case their admission is in conformity with the unamended ordinance.

2. In this view, the grievance of the petitioners in this petition is addressed inasmuch as the petitioners would now be entitled to be enrolled by the Delhi Bar Council, subject to the petitioners fulfilling all other relevant criteria.

3. The learned counsel for respondent no.l states that Bar Council of Delhi has also been asked, in the peculiar facts of these cases, to enrol the petitioners.

4. In view of the above, the principal grievance of the petitioners in this petition does not survive. Insofar as other prayers are concerned, including for grant of compensation, the same are unmerited. This Court is not persuaded to grant the same.

5. The petitions are, accordingly, disposed of The pending application ' also stands disposed of VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 01, 2017 RK