(2016) 443 KLW 744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
W.P (C) No.33335 of 2015
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2016
PETITIONER(S)
1. LEO LUKOSE, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ADV.A.U.LUKOSE, DEEPAM HOUSE, SADANAM ROAD, ERANHIPALAM, CIVIL STATION P.O., CALICUT-673 020.
2. ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN, AGED 22, S/O.ADV.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, 7B, JM CRESCENT P.J.ANTONY ROAD, MAMANGALAM, KOCHI-682024.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR SMT.P.SREELAKSHMI SRI.V.SREEJAYAN
RESPONDENT(S)
1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI-682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CUSAT, COCHIN UNIVERSITY.PO, KOCHI-682 022.
3. DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, CUSAT, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI-682 022.
ADDITIONAL R4 TO 173 IMPLEADED
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY R4-R173 BY ADVS. SRI.S.KANNAN SRI.A.RAJESH
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.Krishna Menon who was the Principal of the prestigious Madras Law College (now Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College) for 19 long years (1930-1949) used to welcome the freshers as follows:-
“Gentlemen, you are seen here because you cannot be seen elsewhere”
Those were the days when the students sought refuge in the law colleges as they could not succeed in securing admission in other professional colleges owing to their poor academic record. The situation has changed more than half a century down the lane and the law colleges are now the most sought after institutions for the students to pursue their education. This necessarily involves a more serious imparting of education to the students which the Universities and the law colleges in the State are yet to realise.
2. The Writ Petition seeks the implementation of the directions contained in
Satheesh Kumar v. Mahatma Gandhi University [2015 (4) KLT 151]
wherein it has inter alia been held as follows:-
“Therefore the prescription of the minimum hours of lecture classes and holding of tutorials, moot court and seminars by the Bar Council of India is to be scrupulously followed by the Universities. The above exercises are essential to chisel out the best in a law student many of whom are destined to become lawyers, judicial officers, parliamentarians etc. The possible lag in the course is not an excuse for the Universities to commit breach of the statutory rules and the classes cannot also be telescoped.
9. It will be desirable if the Registrar and the Controller of Examinations of the Universities assure themselves that the necessary exercises as above are completed by each of the Colleges. Such a subjective satisfaction can be arrived at on the basis of the inputs from the Principal/Head of the Department of Law in the various Colleges. It is only after being convinced of the requisite number of lecture classes, tutorials, moot court and seminars can the examination for each of the Semester be scheduled. The minimum hours stipulated by the Bar Council of India should have been completed before the commencement of the examinations for each of the Semester.”
The above decision was rendered following
Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick [(1994) 2 SCC 102]
and
Bar Council of India v. Dayanand College of Law and others [(2007) 2 SCC 202].
3. The Bar Council of India has in this regard framed Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and Chapter II thereof deals with the standards of Professional Legal Education. Rule 10 of the Rules pertains to the Semester System in the unitary and integrated courses being conducted by the Universities and is to the following effect:-
“10.Semester system The course leading to either degree in law, unitary or on integrated double degree, shall be conducted in semester system in not less than 15 weeks for unitary degree course or not less than 18 weeks in double degree integrated course with not less than 30 class-hours per week including tutorials, moot room exercise and seminars provided there shall be at least 24 lecture hours per week. Provided further that in case of specialized and/or honours law courses there shall be not less than 36 classhours per week including seminar, moot court and tutorial classes and 30 minimum lecture hours per week. Provided further that Universities are free to adopt trimester system with appropriate division of courses per trimester with each of the trimester not less than 12 weeks.”
(emphasis supplied)
There has to be 36 class hours per week including seminars, moot court and tutorial classes and 30 minimum lecture hours per week in the case of honours law courses. The writ petition concerns the honours law courses (BBA-LLB and B.Com-LLB) conducted by the Cochin University of Science and Technology ['the CUSAT' for short] at Ernakulam. 36 class hours per week spanning over 18 weeks for such a double degree integrated course works out to 648 class room hours for a single semester. The petitioners had given the split up of the number of class room hours in Semesters IX, VII, V, III and I which did not exceed 304 as against the requisite 648 in number. The petitioners asserted that the situation is the same in all the five semesters for the BBA-LLB, B.Com-LLB and that the students suffocate due to the telescoping of the classes.
4. The petitioners did not for a moment find fault with any of the faculty members since they had done their best and the classes could not go on due to a variety of reasons at CUSAT. It was reported that the hostel remained closed for renovation for quite some time and hence classes could not be taken and that some days were lost due to arts festivals and strikes. But the fact remained that the students were fortunate enough only to undergo less than one-half of the class hours prescribed by the Bar Council of India before the ensuing semester examinations. It is under these circumstances was the present writ petition filed by the students seeking to postpone the semester examinations scheduled to commence on 17.11.2015. The original schedule of the semester examinations was stayed giving liberty to the CUSAT to reschedule the same following the Bar Council of India prescriptions. It is now reported that the classes were hence extended upto 17.12.2015 to make up the deficit in the teaching hours and the gesture of the CUSAT in that regard is to be appreciated. The semester examinations have now been rescheduled to start on 28.01.2016 in view of the inter-university sports event slated to commence shortly.
5. I heard Mr.P.G.Jayasankar, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners who had worked as guest faculty in a few Law Colleges before. I heard Mr.Millu Dandapani, Advocate on behalf of the CUSAT who incidentally had secured his Masters Degree therefrom. I also heard Mr.S.Kannan, Advocate on behalf of the 170 students of the college who got themselves impleaded as additional respondents in the writ petition. None of the respondents did file any counter affidavit to the writ petition traversing the allegations therein.
6. The role of the Bar Council of India for regulating standards of professional legal education has been re-affirmed in the final report of the committee on reform of legal education. The committee was formed pursuant to the orders of Supreme Court in SLP No. 22337/2008 and as approved by the later resolution of the Bar Council of India. The committee has made copious reference to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 framed by the Bar Council of India in its final report. The committee has also recommended that the remuneration to the faculty must be in conformity with the recommendations of the sixth Central Pay Commission. The necessity to stretch 18 weeks for a single semester comprising of a minimum of 36 class hours per week including seminars, moot court and tutorials is with a purpose. The imparting of knowledge in education includes absorption, retention, application and re-production which is a multi-layered process consuming time. Attempts by the colleges to run over the course compromising on the time factor prejudicially affects the quality of the education and puts psychological pressures on the students. It is ofcourse true that many of the working days are lost due to ill-conceived agitations in the name of student rights and social righteousness.
7. A Division Bench of this Court in
Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala [2004 (2) KLT 627]
in the context of granting police protection to a college had occasion to observe as follows:-
“Whether the students have a right to strike and boycott classes is an important and relevant question on which views may differ. But there cannot be any difference of opinion as to whether the students on strike have any right to cause obstruction and disturbance to the conduct of classes or to prevent other students from attending classes. In our view, the students on strike have no right to cause any sort of obstruction and disturbance to the conduct of classes or to prevent other students from attending classes. Demonstrations, 'dharna' and similar activities inside the college campus will definitely cause obstruction and disturbance to the conduct of classes and will prevent the teachers from conducting classes and other students from attending classes. The students who are not on strike have a right to attend classes without being prevented or disturbed by others. It is part of their right to education. It cannot be allowed to be infringed. Therefore even if the students on strike want to hold agitation, demonstration, 'dharna', etc., they may hold it only outside the college campus so that no sort of obstruction or disturbance is caused to the smooth functioning of the college and the conduct of classes and the rights of the other students are not violated.”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus students who choose to participate in a strike or 'dharna' may walk out of the class rooms at the risk of their attendance without disrupting the ongoing classes attended by willing students. The members of the teaching faculty are empowered to take classes even if there is only one student in the class room and such teaching hour is liable to be reckoned. The academic activity whether it be lecture, seminar, moot court or tutorials so held has to be given credit to for compliance of the Bar Council of India prescriptions. Any student on strike who disrupts the activity aforestated is liable to be removed by the police on complaint made by the head of the department or the Principal of the College. This is of course in addition to the entitlement of the college authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring student who had disrupted the academic activity. Similarly no student has any sort of right to obstruct other eligible students from entering the class rooms or the portals of a college under the guise of strike, agitation, or 'dharna'. Only such a course will safeguard the right to education of the students who are willing to attend the classes obediently and take the examinations following. Higher education though not a fundamental right is indisputably a human right as part of one's development.
[See:
State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh (2006) 2 SCC 545]
The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj/1.1.2016