Recently, a petition was filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the Bar Council of Maharashtra’s decision to deny sanad/enrolment to a law graduate. The denial was based on her aggregate marks of less than 45% in her bachelor’s degree before enrolling in the three-year LLB course. The petitioner a graduate of Bachelor of Commerce contends that despite completing the 3-year LLB program, she should not be barred from obtaining sanad.
The petitioner who graduated with 43.80% in Bachelor of Commerce sought admission to the 3-year LLB course at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj University, a private institution. After completing the course she applied to the Bar Council of Maharashtra for sanad/enrolment. The Bar Council requested a conversion certificate for her B.Com marks to verify eligibility, but the university failed to provide the document. Instead, the university proposed an alternative solution, suggesting the petitioner pursue the degree again at another college and offering a full refund of the fees. A letter from the Bar Council of Maharashtra referenced Rule 7 of the Rules of Legal Education, questioning the university's admission process. The petitioner argues that her enrolment should not have been denied as the university did not raise objections about her eligibility during her three years of study. The petitioner claims that had she has been informed of her ineligibility at the time of admission, she would not have pursued the law degree. The petition further asserts that it was the university's duty to verify eligibility during document submission and that the Bar Council should have supervised the admission process.
The division bench, comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil, heard the matter and issued a notice to the respondents, calling for a response to the petitioner's claims. The Court noted the petitioner’s contention that despite meeting all requirements for admission and completing her law degree, she was being penalized for an issue that could have been addressed at the time of admission. The bench further highlighted that the university had certified her completion of the 3 year LLB program, indicating that no objections were raised regarding her eligibility during the entire duration of her studies. This raised concerns regarding the responsibility of both the university and the Bar Council in verifying the petitioner’s eligibility before she undertook the course. The Court expressed the view that the university’s failure to raise the eligibility issue during the admission process and the entire study tenure potentially resulted in an unjust situation for the petitioner.
Additionally, the Court took into account the petitioner’s argument that the Bar Council, upon recognizing the university, should have had a role in overseeing the admission process to ensure compliance with the Rules of Legal Education. It appeared that the Bar Council's lack of oversight had contributed to the predicament the petitioner now faced.
The bench scheduled the next hearing for January 13, 2025, to consider the petitioner’s request for processing her enrolment application. The petitioner has sought a direction from the Court to the Bar Council of Maharashtra to enrol her as an advocate, emphasizing that the denial of enrolment was a result of procedural failures and not a lack of academic qualification. The petitioner contends that the refusal to issue sanad is an abuse of process and a result of non-application of mind by the respondents.
~Siddharth Raghuvanshi
Picture Source :
