Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University and its Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, challenged the validity of Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education 2008 framed by the Bar Council of India. The rule defined 'regular approval' as approval for a period not exceeding five years. The petitioners contended that the rule was ultra vires the rule-making power of the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961, and that their college had been granted permanent approval in 1995, which should continue. The court examined the scope of the Bar Council's rule-making power under Sections 7, 24, and 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It held that the Bar Council has the power to frame rules for legal education and to prescribe conditions for approval, including the duration. The 2008 Rules replaced all previous rules, directives, and notifications, and the concept of permanent approval was not recognized under the new regime. The court found that Rule 2(xxiv) was within the rule-making power and not ultra vires. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was upheld as valid.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Subordinate Legislation - Ultra Vires Challenge - Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education 2008 - The court examined whether the rule was beyond the rule-making power of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961. Held that the rule is intra vires as the Bar Council has the power to prescribe conditions for approval of law colleges, including the duration of approval. (Paras 1-10)
B) Legal Education - Bar Council of India - Power to Frame Rules - Sections 7, 24, 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 - The court held that the Bar Council of India has the authority to frame rules for legal education and to replace previous rules, directives, and notifications. The concept of permanent approval was not recognized under the 2008 Rules, and the rule limiting regular approval to five years is valid. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education 2008, which defines 'regular approval' as approval for a period not exceeding five years, is ultra vires the rule-making power of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education 2008 is held to be intra vires the rule-making power of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Law Points
- Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education 2008 is intra vires the Advocates Act
- 1961
- Bar Council of India has power to frame rules for legal education
- permanent approval concept not recognized under 2008 Rules
- regular approval limited to five years
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (04) 24
Writ Petition No. 1114/2018
A.S. Chandurkar, Amit Borkar
M.G. Bhangde (Senior Advocate) with P.B. Patil for petitioners; J.Y. Ghurde (AGP) for respondent no.1; A.S. Jaiswal (Senior Advocate) with K.R. Narwade for respondent no.2
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law
State of Maharashtra and Bar Council of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education 2008 as ultra vires the rule-making power of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought declaration that Rule 2(xxiv) is ultra vires and for continuation of permanent approval status of the law college.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' law college had been granted permanent approval in 1995, but the new Rule 2(xxiv) limited regular approval to five years, which the petitioners argued was beyond the Bar Council's power.
Issues
Whether Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education 2008 is ultra vires the rule-making power of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Rule 2(xxiv) is ultra vires as it restricts approval to five years, whereas the college had permanent approval; the rule is beyond the scope of Sections 7, 24, and 49 of the Advocates Act.
Respondent Bar Council of India argued that the rule is within its rule-making power and that the 2008 Rules replaced all previous rules, including the concept of permanent approval.
Ratio Decidendi
The Bar Council of India has the power under the Advocates Act, 1961 to frame rules for legal education, including prescribing the duration of approval for law colleges. Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education 2008, which defines 'regular approval' as approval for a period not exceeding five years, is within the rule-making power and is not ultra vires. The 2008 Rules replaced all previous rules, directives, and notifications, and the concept of permanent approval is not recognized under the new regime.
Judgment Excerpts
The validity of Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education-2008 as framed by the Bar Council of India has been challenged in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as being ultra vires the rule making power of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The said Rules were to replace all previous rules, directives, notifications and resolutions relating to matters covered under the said Rules.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2018. Rule was issued and made returnable forthwith. Arguments were heard on 12th March 2020, and judgment was pronounced on 8th April 2020.
Acts & Sections
- Advocates Act, 1961: Sections 7, 24, 49
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016:
