Ritvik Balanagraj B v. Bar Council of India, KSLU & ORS (2021) - Intermediate Semester Law Offline Exams in KSLU

• DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 08^th February, 2021
• JUDGES:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Devdas
• PARTIES: Ritvik Balanagraj B (Plaintiff) BCI, KSLU & ors. (Respondent)

SUBJECT

The following writ petition deals with Article 226 under the Constitution of India. This writ petition is filed in prayer of quashing the circulate dated 09.11.2020 issued by the R-2 VIDE annexure and etc; as it imposes examinations through offline mode on intermediate semester law students in KSLU. 

AN OVERVIEW

1. On Monday, the Karnataka High Court quashed a Bar Council of India (BCI) circular mandating the conduct of offline exams for intermediate semester students of Karnataka State Law University (KSLU).
2. The Court also quashed the time-table for intermediate semester exams for students of first to fourth year.
3. Subsequently after the judgment was pronounced, another advocate had urged the Court that a similar order be passed for three year BA.LLB students as well as the order which was issued was only for the 5-year BA.LLB students.
4. The Bench had observed that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) should be empathetic to the plight of students and should not compel them to write twelve exams back-to-back.
5. It was argued that the Bar Council (BCI) cannot issue guidelines contrary to the UGC guidelines.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Constitution of India

• Article 226- empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.
• Article 14- it guarantees to all persons equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

ISSUES

• What about 3 years LL.B course student's fate, who had also suffered equally during Covid-19 pandemic?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. On Monday, the Karnataka High Court quashed a Bar Council of India (BCI) circular mandating the conduct of offline exams for intermediate semester students of Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) and set aside in so far as the intermediate semester examination are concerned with respect to first to fourth year, five year law students.
2. The Court stated that, "the decision of the Bar Council of India and the respondent University, not being arrived at, on the decision of any expert opinion, unlike the guidelines issued by the UGC, this Court is of the considered opinion that, if not for cancellation of all the examinations, at least the even semester examinations, of the first to fourth years intermediate semester law students requires cancellation."
3. Justice Devdas argued that a rationale behind the decision of the University Grants Commission (UGC) in advising the universities to grade students on the basis of internal assessment and performance in the previous semester.
4. Subsequently the Court also overrode the time-table for intermediate semester exams for students of first to fourth year.
5. It was then clarified that KSLU may announce a fresh time-table for first to fourth year law students of the five-year law course, for the odd semesters only. To add to the aspect of even semesters, the same shall be assessed on the basis of internal assessment to an extent of 50%. The remaining 50% shall be assessed on the basis of the students' performance in the previous semesters, if available.
6. After the judgment was pronounced, another advocate had urged the Court that a similar order be passed for three year BA.LLB students as well. But the Court argued that, there is no petitioner from 3 year course and this cannot be treated as a PIL as they are seeking relief in their personal interest or private interest.
7. Advocate Shridhar Prabhu, appearing for the BCI, had contended that there is neither any provision prohibiting the conduct of two end semester exams together nor any legal constraint in conducting examinations in physical mode. The Court questioned the necessity to conduct the intermediate semester exams. As even engineering students have been assessed based on the internal marks of the pervious and marks obtained by the previous semester.
8. It was further argued by Senior Advocate AS Ponnanna and advocate Abhishek Janardhan, appearing for the petitioners, that the decision of KSLU to conduct intermediate exams is in violation of the guidelines issued by University Grants Commission (UGC) and the State government order.
9. It was argued that this order by the UGC was in view of the public health crisis at hand hence, the BCI and KSLU cannot issue circulars/directives to the contrary as the issue of public health is not within their domain. And they no right to overrule it.
10. Follow the above mentioned order trust was placed in Praneeth K v. UGC, wherein a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had held that the UGC guidelines are mandatory in nature and that universities have a statutory duty to implement the same. The UGC guidelines cannot be ignored as merely advisory, added the petitioners.
11. This was subsequently countered by Prabhu, who stated that the Supreme Court decision only speaks about final year students and does not discuss the scope of intermediate semester students.
12. Subsequently, the bench directed KSLU to announce a fresh timetable with respect for first to fourth year law students of five-year law course, scheduling exams of odd semester only. Taking into account the even semester, the same shall be assessed on the basis of internal assessments of the students to the extent of 50 percent and remaining 50 percent marks on the basis of the performance in previous semester only, if possible.
13. Further, it was argued that because of the sudden shutdown of colleges, the students have lost access to libraries and have no access to study material.

CONCLUSION

To cumulate all the above information and to put in plainly is that this decision by the court was a forward one as it took into account all the plausible factors of the case, as the examination will have a disproportionate and adverse impact on the students who were unable to attend classes in online mode for various reasons like accessibility, remote locality, and affordability. The students would be compelled to write examinations on subjects which they were never taught and that will have a disparate impact on these students and will impose an extra burden on such individuals who were already marginalized, and violate their right under Article 14.