VASU SACHDEVA vs BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS

$~118
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7058/2024 and CM APPL. 29438/2024
VASU SACHDEVA
….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.K. Sachdeva, Advocate

versus

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS
….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate for R1/BCI
Mr. Subrodeep Saha for Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate for R2

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 20.05.2024

1. The prayer clause in this writ petition which, with respect, is somewhat difficult to comprehend, reads as under :
“It is, therefore, most respectfully and in the interest of justice prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

(a) Allow the writ petition of the petitioner;

(b) Give direction to the respondents to equivalent the petitioner’s degree LL.B Hons (as 3 years graduation course) in Delhi/India as per law.

(c) Allow to take the admission in LL.B Course in recognised university CCS University, U.P. India (three years) /NLU & for bridge 2 years course.

(d) Pass any other orders(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the interest of justice”

2. I have heard Mr. G.K. Sachdeva, learned counsel for the petitioner, at some length.

3. Consequent to completing his Secondary School Education in 2016 and his Senior School Certificate Examination in 2018, the petitioner took admission in the LL.B (Hons.) Bachelor of Law Course provided by the University of Hertfordshire in the U.K. in September 2018. The said course was completed by the petitioner in 2021.

4. The petitioner returned to India and on the basis of the LL.B. (Hons.) degree obtained from the University of Hertfordshire, sought enrolment as an advocate so as to practice in India.

5. The petitioner was informed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that, in order to be qualified to practice as an advocate in India, the petitioner would have to undertake a two year bridge course conducted by the India International University of Legal Education and Research, situated in Goa.

6. Mr. Sachdeva, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client is in impecunious circumstances and is in no position to afford the two year course.

7. Mr. Preet Pal Singh submits that, in the alternative the petitioner would have to undertake a five year law course from any University in India after following the admission process stipulated in that regard.

8. These options are, however, not palatable to the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a direction to the BCI to treat the LL.B. (Hons.) course Bachelor of Law degree obtained by him from the University of Hertfordshire as equivalent to an undergraduate course in India so that the petitioner can on the basis of such declaration of equivalence, obtain entry into a three year law course in India.

9. It is quite obvious that this Court cannot direct the BCI to provide any such certificate of equivalence. Equivalence is a matter for academic bodies to decide and Courts cannot declare courses of study or the Institutions from which such courses are undertaken, as equivalent to others.

10. It appears that the petitioner has made representations to the Bar Council of India, seeking that the LLB. (Hons.). Bachelor of Law Degree undertaken by him from the University of Hertfordshire, U.K. be treated as equivalent to an undergraduate course in India.

11. In these circumstances, all that the court can do in this case is to direct the BCI to take a reasoned and speaking decision on the petitioner’s representation and communicate the decision to the petitioner as soon as it is taken. Let the said decision be taken within a period of three weeks from today.

12. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J
MAY 20, 2024/yg Click here to check corrigendum, if any

WP(C) 7058/2024 Page 1 of 1