[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kishore Kakumal Keswani vs National Company Law Tribunal Thru Its ... on 12 May, 2026
1 501-wp(st)-14743-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 14743 OF 2026
Rushikesh R. Kamble And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
-----------------
Adv. Asmi Desai, for Petitioners.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. G.P a/w Mr.V. G. Badgujar, AGP, AGP for
Respondent -State.
Adv. Shailendra Kanetkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Shekhar Jagtap (through V.C), a/w Ms. Sairuchita Chowdhary, for
Respondent No. 5 - BCI.
-----------------
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 12 MAY, 2026
(VACATION COURT)
P.C.:-
1. Issue Notice to the Respondents.
2. Mr. Kanetkar, waives service for Respondent No. 4.
3. Mr. Jagtap, waives service for Respondent No. 5.
4. This petition is moved on the ground of extreme urgency, it being
stated that the Semester-II examination for the three-year LL.B. course is
2 501-wp(st)-14743-2026 (C).doc
scheduled to commence on 13 May 2026. According to the Petitioners, in the
absence of urgent ad-interim reliefs, the Petitioners will be prevented from
appearing for the examination and will consequently lose the academic
semester/year, causing grave and irreparable prejudice.
5. In this background, and more particularly, as the examination is
scheduled on 13 May 2026, i.e. tomorrow, the petition is being taken up for
urgent hearing.
6. At the outset, we may note that there are two Petitioners in these
proceedings. The present order shall be confined to Petitioner No. 1 -
Rushikesh R. Kamble, for the reasons set out below.
7. Petitioner No. 1 is a student of the first year of the three-year LL.B.
course and is appearing for the Second Semester Examination commencing
on 13 May 2026. He has attendance of 52%, as is evident from Exhibit "C" to
the Petition, which is the document showing the attendance record of ILS
Law College, Pune, for the academic year 2025-26.
8. Ms. Asmi Desai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
submitted that this Court, in similar facts and circumstances where similarly
placed Petitioners had attendance between 50% and 54%, has granted
permission to appear in the LL.B. examination. One such order relied upon
by her is the order dated 4 May 2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 6027 of
2026 along with companion petitions by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.
3 501-wp(st)-14743-2026 (C).doc
9. She therefore submits that, as the Petitioner is similarly placed, the
Petitioner may be permitted to appear for the examination commencing on
13 May 2026 on terms and conditions similar to those imposed in the order
dated 4 May 2026
10. Mr. Kanetkar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 - the
College, submitted that the College has been served with a copy of the
Petition only today and that too some time ago. He raised concerns regarding
the last-minute filing of the Petition, particularly when the Petitioners were
aware at least one month in advance that the examination was to be held on
13 May 2026.
11. Mr. Jagtap, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India,
submitted that, insofar as the challenge to Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India
Rules (Legal Education Rules, 2008) is concerned, such challenge is not
premised on sound legal grounds.
12. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and, with
their assistance, perused the record.
13. We find that, more particularly, the document at Exhibit "C" to the
Petition clearly reveals that Petitioner No. 1 - Rushikesh Kamble has
attendance of 52% for the academic year 2025-26. Prima facie, we find merit
in the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and her reliance
4 501-wp(st)-14743-2026 (C).doc
on the order of this Court dated 4 May 2026 passed in Writ Petition No.
6027 of 2026 along with companion petitions.
14. We may gainfully refer to paragraph 4 of the said order, wherein this
Court relied upon the judgments passed in Aman Jaiswal S/o. Shyam Bihar
Prasad Jaiswal vs. Vice Chancellor, Maharashtra National Law University,
Nagpur & Ors.1 as well as Vinayak Krishna Thorat vs. University of Mumbai
& Anr2., passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court. By the said order, the
Court was of the prima facie view that those Petitioners should be allowed to
appear in the Semester Examination, subject to the outcome of the petitions.
15. As far as the given factual matrix is concerned, we do not find any
distinction between those proceedings and the matter before us.
16. We are therefore of the prima facie view that, particularly considering
that the examination is scheduled for tomorrow, i.e. 13 May 2026, it would be
appropriate to permit Petitioner No. 1 to appear in the Second Semester
Examination commencing on 13 May 2026, subject to the outcome of this
Petition. The Respondents to act accordingly.
17. The Petitioner shall not claim any equities on the basis of this order.
18. All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
19. The above directions are passed by way of an ad interim order.
20. The Respondents shall file their affidavit in reply on or before 9 June
1. Writ Petition No.4727 of 2025 decided on 28th November 2025.
2. Writ Petition (L) No. 5881 of 2026 dated 17th February, 2026.
5 501-wp(st)-14743-2026 (C).doc
2026.
21. The Petitioners shall file their affidavit in rejoinder on or before 18
June 2026.
22. It made clear that this order shall be applicable to Petitioner No. 1. At
this stage, we refrain from making any observations qua Petitioner No. 2,
whose attendance is at 49%.
23. Place the Writ Petition for further consideration along with the
companion petitions on 22 June 2026.
24. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.
[SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]
