'Strict Regulations In 5-Yr Law Course Have Helped Students Do Well Abroad': MP HC Orally Remarks In Plea Challenging BCI's Attendance Norms

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has orally remarked that whilst India has not always been at the forefront of global education, the strict adherence to high standards in the 5 year law course, regulated by the Bar Council of India, has helped student's go abroad and perform well in foreign law firms and academic courses.

A division bench presided over by Justice Atul Sreedharan orally remarked, "We have been lampooned as a country for our poor education. In that situation, law is a very important field. Students are doing well abroad because of adherence to strict curriculum."

These observations came in a plea moved by students of NLIU Bhopal, who had been debarred from attending their semester exams due to a shortage of attendance. 

Both students had fallen below the 65% threshold for attendance as specified under the BCI rules, specifically Rule 12, and thus challenged the constitutionality of the same.

Counsel for the students stated that there was no option to attend classes virtually under the BCI rules, and thus, even though the students wanted to attend the classes physically, they could not do so due to being in the hospital.

It was stated that the BCI rules only mandated that classes should be attended, without specifying whether the same should be done online or offline, and thus this autonomy be provided to the universities.

Counsel for the University argued that the submission on having virtual classes was entirely academic, because the student never approached the university authorities in a formal capacity to be allowed to attend classes virtually.

It was submitted that just because the attendance rule was proving inconvenient for a particular student, the constitutionality of the same could not be challenged.

Counsel for the BCI submitted that although the BCI rules had specified a minimum of 65% attendance, in this case, the university had further relaxed it to the impermissible limit of 60%, but even then, the petitioner's attendance had fallen short of the same.

It was argued that there was no clear indication of the medical ailments suffered by the petitioners, either.

In hearing the submissions, the court suggested that the petitioner withdraw the plea, and ordered that their results of the semesters which had been attended be declared, and they be given liberty to reappear in the semesters from which they were debarred.

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn.