The Delhi High Court recently scrutinized a rule by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that prevents graduates from open universities from enrolling in law courses, describing it as lacking rational basis. This judicial observation arose in the context of a case titled Akhilesh v. Union of India & Ors, as decided on July 17 by a Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.
The case was initiated by a law graduate whose application for enrollment with the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) was denied due to the contentious BCI regulation. The Court, in its preliminary assessment, questioned the logic behind disqualification of candidates who, despite completing a course via an open university or distant learning system, are deemed ineligible for vocational pursuits.
The petitioner in question had undergone a Bachelor’s Preparatory Program (BPP) from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and subsequently completed a Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and a law degree (LL.B.). He even succeeded in the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE). Nevertheless, the BCD rejected his enrollment, citing his lack of a 10+2 qualification, which is a prerequisite under the BCI Rules.
The Court underscored the purpose of open universities, which is to enable disadvantaged individuals to access higher education. It emphasized that these institutions were established to integrate such individuals into the mainstream education system, providing them with opportunities otherwise unavailable due to various disadvantages.
The controversial provision is an explanation to Rule 5 under Chapter II, Part IV of the BCI Rules. It states, “The applicants who have obtained 10 + 2 or graduation/post-graduation through open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law courses.”
More Read
Despite a previous response to the petition, the BCI had not addressed the constitutionality of the challenged rule. Consequently, the Court has ordered the BCI to provide a detailed response specifically addressing this rule within a four-week timeframe.
The next hearing for this matter is slated for October 9. The student was represented by Advocates Sunil Kumar, Vipin, Dimple Singh, Vijay, and Dheeraj. The Union of India was represented by Advocates Nishant Gautam, Vineet Negi, Kavya Shukla, and Vibhav Nath. Advocate Preetpal Singh appeared on behalf of the Bar Council of India. Senior Advocate T Singhdev, along with Advocates Tanishq Srivastava and Abhijit Chakravarty, represented the Bar Council of Delhi, while Advocates Anshuman Sharma and Kartikey Kumar appeared for the University Grants Commission (UGC).
The Court’s inquiry into this rule may signal a potential shift in the regulations governing legal education and the recognition of non-traditional educational backgrounds.
