Legal fraternity split over BCI slamming Kerala High Court judge

The criticism of India’s legal education system by Justice Muhamed Mustaque of the Kerala High Court has triggered an angry response from the Bar Council of India (BCI), igniting a row that appears to have divided the legal fraternity.

It was on Sunday, while launching a mentoring initiative ‘Juris Trailblazers’ which seeks to guide law students by providing a range of opportunities, that Justice Mustaque said it was the “biggest tragedy” that BCI members were dictating the syllabus for law colleges.

He added that the BCI members “don’t know what is happening beyond litigation”.

Stung, the Bar Council reacted almost immediately, saying it was surprised that Justice Mustaque was not aware of the historical and reformative steps it had taken.

“‘instead of criticising and listening to vested interests, the Hon’ble Judge should give his valuable suggestions and inputs to the Bar Councils to which he owes a lot, having studied law in an institution approved by the BCI,” it said in a hard-hitting statement.

Unseemly row

The exchange of words between a Parliament-created statutory body and a High Court Judge has created ripples in the legal fraternity across India, with the lawyers’ collective vertically split over the opinions.

The judge was quite forthright in his attack: “Who is dictating our syllabus? The Bar Council members. This is the biggest tragedy we are facing in India. The minuscule people who get elected through an election decide about legal education. They are only litigation professionals; their domain knowledge is only concerned with litigation and they dictate the syllabus. This is the biggest challenge we face in India. They don’t have an idea of what is happening beyond litigation. No college has autonomy to decide on their curriculum. If they don’t follow the curriculum dictated by the Bar Council, necessarily they will face some penal action and their course will not be recognized.”

The BCI dubbed his criticism “bizarre” and said: “Just because he is a Judge, he does not have the liberty to pass any comment against anybody or any organization without having proper knowledge about it.”

BCI co-chairman Ved Prakash Sharma clarified that the Bar Council has a separate body for matters relating to legal education which is headed by a former Supreme Court judge and has two sitting chief justices of High Courts as co-chairs.

Education panel

Besides, there are two former chief justices of High Courts and 11 renowned academicians, including Vice Chancellors of National Law Universities, Deans of Central universities and other government and private law universities as its members apart from some noted senior advocates of the country.

Sharma said: “This high-level committee decides the policies and norms of legal education. The Hon’ble Judge should know there are only five elected members of the BCI in its Legal Education Committee.

“These days it has become a fashion to criticise to create a flutter in the media. Today, the standard of legal education in India is second to none. The people suffering from inferiority complex and who have a feeling in their minds that only a few foreign universities are very good make such irresponsible comments,” he added.

According to the Advocate’s Act of 1961, the functions of BCI include the promotion of legal education and laying down the standards of such education in consultation with the universities in India. The council is entitled to recognise universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and to visit and inspect universities. But they have no prescribed rights to formulate or dictate the curriculum or syllabus.

Although the BCI came out strongly against the Kerala high court judge, the latter gained sympathy from fellow professionals.

BCI attacked

Said Dr NK Jayakumar, a former vice-chancellor of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kerala: “Of late, there is a tendency for BCI to overreach and interfere in any matter related to law colleges and universities. They should suggest what all should be taught to be a better professional, as a professional body. Going beyond that is interference in academic freedom and is unacceptable.”

Dr Jayakumar said these days the BCI not only dictates the syllabus but imposes heavy financial burden on colleges besides conducting inspections in universities. According to him, they have no right micromanage or impose penalties.

“It is true that the BCI has an expert committee and advisory board but the fact is that the BCI controls all these. Having said these, I should also say that many law colleges in India are not run properly.”

A Kerala high court advocate backed Justice Mustaque, saying he was entirely correct in what he said. “It appears his comments have hurt some biggies up the ladder. That’s why this immediate response.”

A section of the Kerala High Court advocates wants to adapt a resolution supporting the justice. “It will take time as we will have to convene a meeting after serving notice,” felt a member. However, the Secretary of the Association told The Federal that it has not taken any decision in this regard yet.

“The tone and tenor of the BCI statement seems unacceptable to me,” says Hareesh Vasudevan, another advocate in the High Court. “It is surprising the BCI criticised a judge so harshly for making a critical remark.”