1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated : 19.9.2014
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Writ Petition No.3444 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
1.V.G.Arun
2.K.Muthuraj
3.K.Naman
4.R.Pradeep
5.A.Rehoboth
6.S.M.Raghuram
7.G.Rajasimmon
8.M.Vishnu Venkatesh

...Petitioners
Vs

1.The Secretary, the Bar Council of India,

21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 002.
2.The Secretary, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu,
High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.
3.The Principal, Saveetha School of Law,
Saveetha University, 162, Poonamallee
High Road, Thiruverkadu, Chennai-600 077.

...Respondents

PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for

issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare the carry over of failed papers
in

B.A.B.L.(Hons.) Degree Course

Regulations

framed by the third

respondent, as unconstitutional and ultra vires the Rules and Regulations

of the Bar Council of India for Legal Education and strike it down and
consequently direct the third respondent to allow the petitioners to

2
continue their studies including attending classes, tests, exams, etc., and
all other regular activities in pursuance of the degree.
For Petitioners
For Respondent-1
For Respondent-2
For Respondent-3
Mr.S.Saravanan

:
:
:
:

Mr.M.S.Krishnan, SC for Mr.D.Dorai Rajan

Mr.S.R.Rajagopal
Mr.S.Y.Masood
Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, SC for

ORDER
The petitioners, who are the students of the third respondent
University, has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a declaration
that the break system framed by the third respondent University is
unconstitutional and ultra virus the Rules and Regulations of the Bar
Council of India for Legal Education.
2. Heard Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
first respondent, Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the

second

respondent and Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy,

learned

Senior

Counsel appearing for the third respondent.

3. The petitioners joined the School of Law started by the third
respondent University, during the academic year 2010-11.

It is an

integrated five years course and at the end of which, every student will
get two degrees, one is a Bachelors Degree in Arts/Commerce/Business
Administration and another in Law.
4. The course is of a trimester system. Therefore, a student has to

3
take three semesters each during the first three years. The third
respondent University appears to have prescribed breaking system at the
end of the 9th semester on the ground that persons, who had not passed
any one of the subjects in the 9 semester, will not be permitted to move
on to the 4th year/10th semester.

5. The petitioners unfortunately, failed in one or more subjects in

the 9th semester, on account of which, the petitioners were directed to
pass the subjects, in which, they failed before they could be permitted to
move on to the 10th semester/4th year.
6. In a similar writ petition in W.P.No.31718 of 2013, the third
respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit in the said
writ petition, they have extracted Regulation No.12. The said Regulation
reads as follows:
"12.Carry over of failed papers:No candidate shall be admitted in the
fourth year without clearing all the examinations
of the previous three years. However, students
will be allowed to carry over the papers, which
they have failed in the previous examinations till
the end of the third year.
No student shall be allowed to appear for
any trimester examination of the course after the
expiry of seven years from the commencement of
the academic year in which the student was

admitted for the course of study."

7. In the light of the said Regulation, I do not think that the prayer
of the petitioners can be sustained.
8. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relies
upon the definition of the expression "Bachelor Degree in Law" in Rule
2(vi) of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education. The said
definition reads as follows:
"2(vi) "Bachelor Degree in Law" means and
includes

degree

in

law

conferred

by

the

University recognized by the Bar Council of India

for the purpose of the Act and includes a bachelor
degree in law after any

bachelor

degree in

science, arts, commerce, engineering, medicine,

or any other discipline of a University for a period
of

study

not

less

than

three

years

or

an

integrated bachelor degree combining the course

of a first bachelor degree in any subject and also
the

law

running

together

in

concert

and

compression for not less than a period of five

years after 10+2 or 11+1 courses as the case
may be."

9. The petitioners also rely upon the definition of the expression

"Integrated Degree Course in Law" appearing in Rule 2(xiii), which reads
as follows :
"2(xiii) "Integrated Degree course in law"

means

double

degree

course

comprising

the

bachelor degree in any branch of knowledge

prosecuted

simultaneously

with

the

Degree

course in law in such an integrated manner as

may be designed by the University concerned for
a continuous period of not less than five years."

10. On the basis of the above definitions, it is contended by the

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that any Integrated Degree
Course is a Double Degree Course, which runs for a continuous period of
not less than five years.

Therefore, it is the contention of the learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioners that when the Rules of Legal Education
of the Bar Council of India do not prescribe a breaking system, any
additional prescription on the part of the University, which will spoil the
definition of the expression "Integrated Degree Course in Law", will be
violative of the Regulations.
11. But, I do not agree with the above contention. What are
stipulated by the Rules of Legal Education of the Bar Council of India, as
rightly contended by Mr.S.R. Rajagopal, the learned Standing Counsel for
the first respondent, are only minimal standards. As per the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Visveswaraiah Technological University
Vs. Krishnendu Halder reported [(2011) 4 SCC 606], a University can
always prescribe additional standards for the improvement of standards.
12. Apart from the above, the above definitions do not indicate as to

6
what would happen if a candidate fails. Therefore, the definitions of the
expressions "Bachelor Degree in Law" and "Integrated Degree Course in
Law" would not advance the case of the petitioners.
13. Inviting my attention to the definition of the expression "Regular
Course of Study" appearing in Rule 2(xxiii), the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners contended that a regular course would mean a course,
which runs at least five hours a day continuously for not less than thirty
hours of working schedule per week.
14. I do not know how this definition would advance the case of the
petitioners.
15. In the Rules of Legal Education framed by the Bar Council of
India, two types of courses of law are prescribed. One is a three year
Degree in Law and another is a Double Degree. Under Rule 4(b), a Double
Degree Integrated Course combines a Bachelors Degree Course in any
discipline of study together with a Bachelors Degree in Law. Such a Double
Degree system is for a duration of not less than five years.

In other

words, what is stipulated is that the course should be for a minimum

period of five years. None of the Rules issued by the Bar Council of India
prohibits the introduction of a breaking system by the University.
16. Breaking system introduced by the third respondent is also not
without any rationale. After the end of the third year, a student acquires a
degree in

any discipline

in

Arts/Commerce/Business

Administration.

7
Therefore, it cannot be said to be illogical or arbitrary that unless a person
clears all arrears up to the 9th semester, he/she will not be permitted to
move on to the 4th year/10th semester.

Therefore, I find no justification

to interfere with the Regulations.

17. However, it appears that the petitioners passed the arrears in a
supplementary examination and they have also now completed the 4th
year of the course and written the examinations for the 10th trimester
also. Though the results of the 10th trimester are yet to be declared, the
petitioners also continued to attend classes for the 11th trimester and
wrote the 11th trimester examinations pursuant to the interim orders
passed by this Court dated 7.2.2014. However, the results of the 11th
trimester examinations are also yet to be declared.
18. In such a situation, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
third respondent to take a decision as to what should be done in this case,
considering the facts that the petitioners have completed 10th and 11th
trimesters and that they cannot now be asked to redo the 10th and 11th
trimesters. Consequently, the above MPs are closed. No costs.
19.9.2014

8
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
RS
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Secretary, the Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional
Area,
Near Bal Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 002.
2.The Secretary, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, High Court Campus,
Chennai-104.

WP.No.3444 of 2014&
MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

19.9.2014