Kerala High Court
Shahbaz M Harris vs Bar Council Of India on 13 October, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:75966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37427 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHAHBAZ M HARRIS
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. M. M HARRIS, MUTTIL HOUSE,
DHANYA RD, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE
SHRI.A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
SHRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM
SHRI.G.MOTILAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
21 ROUSE AVENUE, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002
2 BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT ROAD,
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
3 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
TIRUR - CALICUT RD, THENHIPALAM,
2025:KER:75966
W.P.(C) No.37427/2025
:2:
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 673635
4 GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE THRISSUR
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
LAW COLLEGE ROAD, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
SRI. RAJIT, SC
SMT. K. AMMINIKUTTY, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC
SMT. M.U. VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:75966
W.P.(C) No.37427/2025
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.37427 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who has completed his 9th
Semester of the 5 Year BBA LLB (Hons.) with the 4th
respondent-Government Law College, seeks to quash Ext.P8
order and to direct the 3rd respondent-University to permit the
petitioner to attend the 10 th Semester Examination scheduled
to commence from 14.10.2025.
2. The petitioner states that before the 9th
Semester Examination, the Principal informed the petitioner
that he was not eligible to write the 9 th Semester Examination.
No reason was extended. The petitioner therefore had to
2025:KER:75966
abstain from writing the 9th Semester Examination. Later, the
petitioner submitted a request dated 07.05.2025 enquiring as
to whether a SAY Examination can be conducted for the
petitioner.
3. The College authorities informed the
petitioner that he and two other students had not secured the
required attendance for their respective Semesters and their
names were removed from the rolls. The petitioner would
assert that he had attended classes regularly and had met
minimum attendance criteria for the 9 th Semester. Ext.P4
consolidated attendance sheet would show that the petitioner
had 64.6% attendance which was just below the required
attendance of 70%.
4. The petitioner states that for one Semester,
540 hours of classes are prescribed as per Rule 10 of the
Rules of Legal Education 2019, whereas for the 9 th Semester,
the College conducted only 235 hours of classes. By Ext.P7
judgment in W.P.(C) No.26050/2025, this Court directed the
2025:KER:75966
3rd respondent-University to consider Ext.P6 representation of
the petitioner to declare his detention as void and reinstate
the petitioner in the same Batch.
5. The petitioner states that he was called for a
hearing on 11.08.2025 and no orders were passed on Ext.P6
representation. Later, the University passed Ext.P8 order
upholding the decision of the College to detain the petitioner
in the 9th Semester on account of shortage of attendance and
non completion of compulsory ADR Practical Requirements.
The petitioner was permitted to seek re-admission to the 9 th
Semester with the next Batch.
6. The petitioner states that Ext.P8 order is
illegal and perverse and was issued without proper application
of mind. Ext.P8 order does not go into the requirement of 540
hours of study prescribed by the Rules of Legal Education.
The petitioner would assert that non-completion of ADR
Practical Requirements is not a reason that can be taken to
detain the petitioner.
2025:KER:75966
7. The 4th respondent resisted the writ petition.
The 4th respondent stated that in the 9 th Semester, the actual
attendance secured by the petitioner is only 44%. It was
raised to 64.6% after adding various claims for attendance.
The College has shown maximum accommodation to the
petitioner. The petitioner is a habitual absentee. He was
under condonation twice earlier for shortage of attendance. A
student's attendance shortage can be condoned only for two
times during the entire course period. This benefit was earlier
availed by the petitioner.
8. The 4th respondent further submitted that the
petitioner has secured only 47 marks in the Practical Paper
ADR and he had not completed all the components of Paper
A. the 4th respondent denied the allegation as to the shortage
of working days. The College has not deviated from the
academic calendar published by the University. The writ
petition is therefore devoid of any merit and it is liable to be
dismissed.
2025:KER:75966
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader
representing the 4th respondent and the respective learned
Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
10. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a
direction to permit the petitioner to appear for the 10th
Semester Examination of the 5 Year BBA LLB (Hons.) course
commencing from 14.10.2025. It is not disputed that the
petitioner has not completed the 9th Semester Examinations,
for lack of attendance and also for not completing the
Practical Training Paper. The actual physical attendance of
the petitioner was only 44%. Even after adding various
claims for attendance produced by the petitioner, the
attendance could be raised only up to 64.6% as against the
minimum of 70%.
11. The counsel for the petitioner submits that
the little shortage of attendance can be condoned. As per the
University Rules, shortage of attendance during a course can
2025:KER:75966
be condoned only twice. The petitioner has already availed
the shortage of attendance condoned, twice. As the petitioner
has already availed two condonations, it would not be proper
for this Court to direct the University to consider condonation
of attendance of the petitioner for a third time. As the
petitioner has not cleared the 9th Semester Examinations, he
cannot be permitted to appear for the 10th Semester
Examinations.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is
without merit and it is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/13.10.2025
2025:KER:75966
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37427/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
07.05.2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.03.2025 THAT
WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PETITIONER ON
13.05.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.
GLCTSR/153/2025-C DATED 13.05.2025
ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED
ATTENDANCE SHEET FOR THE 9TH SEMESTER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
15.05.2025 SUBMITTED WITH THE 4TH
RESPONDENT COLLEGE
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
18.05.2025 SUBMITTED WITH THE 3RD
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.07.2025 IN WP(C) 26050/2025
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
13838/2025/ADMN DATED 06.10.2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY
