in the high court of delhi at new ... - indian … manankumarmishra@ ... of delhi was decided much...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017

(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

IN THE MATTER OF :

JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA

S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija

R/o 174, IInd Floor,

Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar

New Delhi-110063 ………PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Union of India,

Through its Secretary,

Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Shastri Bhavan,

New Delhi.

2. Bar Council of India,

Through its Chairman,

21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,

Near Bal Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110 002

E-mail ID: [email protected]

email: [email protected]

3. University of Delhi

Through The Vice Chancellor

Maurice Nagar,Delhi


4. Faculty of Law,

Through its Dean,

mailto:[email protected]


University of Delhi,

Maurice Nagar,Delhi


…RESPONDENTS

IN THE MATTER OF:

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF CLAUSE 5 A OF SCHEDULE

III OF RULES OF LEGAL EDUCATION 2008 AS ENACTED BY

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA UNDER SECTIONS 7(1)(h) AND (i),

24(1)(c)(iii), AND (iiia), 49(1)(af),(ag), AND (d) OF THE

ADVOCATES ACT, 1961;

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED

TO THE PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;

AND

WRIT PETITION IN THE NATURE OF PUBLIC INTREST

LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA SEEKING INDULGENCE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT

TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE MANDAMUS AND/OR

ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/DIRECTION/ORDER

THEREBY DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO ADMIT 2310

STUDENTS IN LAW FACULTY, DELHI UNIVERSITY

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice

And His Companion Judges

Delhi High Court,New Delhi

Most Respectfully Showeth :

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER IS AS UDNER:

1. That the Petitioner is a bonafide citizen of India and is invoking

extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the public

interest as he does not have any personal interest involve in the

present litigation. It is stated that the present petition is not guided

by self gain or for gain to any other person/Institution/Body. It is

stated that the Petitioner has no motive other than of Public Interest

in filing the present Writ Petition.

2. That the Petitioner has come to know about the facts stated in the

present petition after reading and watching news in media and also

through information available on Television, newspapers, internet

etc. The Petitioner has filed representations in this regard, however

the Respondents are not responding.

3. That the present Writ Petition has been filed for the benefit of large

number of citizens who have suffered due to wrong policy of

admissions adopted by the Colleges affiliated with the Respondent

No.3. It is humbly submitted that all such persons are not able to

approach this Hon’ble Court to seek the relief claimed in the

present petition, as most of them are students. That the present

petition, as per the knowledge of the Petitioner shall not adversely

affect any person/body/Institution.

4. That the Petitioner is a law graduate from Campus Law Center,

Delhi University and Lawyer/Advocate by profession having great

interest in the Social Issues. It is stated that the Petitioner has the

means to pay the cost, if any, imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

5. That before filing the present Petition, the Petitioner filed

representations with the Respondents through E-mails, however has

not received any response from Respondents. The representation

was mailed on 17.05.2017. Copies thereof is annexed as

ANNEXURE P-1 (Colly).

6. That the Petitioner has previously filed a Public Interest Litigation

bearing petition no. W.P (C) 7871/2016 and W.P (C) 4581/2017,

both are pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court.

7. That the Respondent No.1 is engaged in bringing world class

opportunities of higher education and research to the student of

India and is engaged in formulating the National Policy on

Education and to ensure that it is implemented in letter and spirit

8. That the Respondent No.2 is a statutory body created by Parliament

to regulate and represent the Indian bar. It performs the regulatory

function by prescribing standards of professional conduct and

etiquette and by exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over the bar. It

also sets standards for legal education and grants recognition to

Universities whose degree in law will serve as qualification for

enrolment as an advocate.

9. That the Respondent No.3 is central university financed by public

funds, the Respondent No.4, Faculty of Law has been a leader in

the field of legal education in India since its inception in 1924 and

continues to be so till date. With the demand for increase in the

number of students to be admitted in the Law Faculty, Law Centre-

I was established in 1970, Law Centre-II in 1971, and Campus Law

Centre in 1975.

10. That the Petitioner was shocked to read a News item on 17.05.2017

in Indian Express news paper that the Respondent No.2, has

imposed a condition this year that the Respondent No. 4, Law

Faculty cannot admit more than 1,440 students in all its three

centres though in all previous years the Law Faculty had been

admitting 2310 students. A copy of the news downloaded from

internet is annexed as ANNEXURE P-2.

11. That as per information available on the Website of Respondent

No.3 has invited applications from eligible candidates to fill 126

vacant positions in Respondent No.4, Law faculty, a copy of

information available on website is annexed as ANNEXURE P-3.

12. That the Respondent No.2 may impose condition to decrease

strength of each law center of Respondent No.4 by invoking

provisions contained in clause 5A of Schedule III of the Legal

Education Rules,2008, a copy of Legal Education Rules,2008 is

annexed as ANNEXURE P-4. The clause 5 A reads as under:-

“5A. Size of a section : The Inspection Committee may

approve for admission in each of the section of a class for not more

than 60 students and may allow a minimum of two sections in each

class but not more than five sections in one class (such as First Year

or Second Year or Third Year, etc) as the case may be unless there

is any exceptional reason for granting more sections in a Class,

such a reason has to be specified by the inspection Committee.”

.

13. That the provisions of clause 5 A of Schedule III of the Legal

Education Rules,2008, herein after refered to as “the impugned

clause”, are wrongly applied in present case as the strength of

permissible admissions in each centre of Law Faculty, University

of Delhi was decided much prior to the enactment of the Legal

Education Rules, 2008. The provisions of clause 5 A of Schedule

III of the Legal Education Rules,2008 are infringing fundamental

rights of citizens seeking admission in Respondent No.4, hence are

assailed as unconstitutional in present petition.

14. That the Respondent No.3 and 4 are public funded educational

institutions receiving grants from University Grants Commission

and by reducing number of admissions the public money is not put

on optimum use.The objective of establishing public funded

educational institutions is to provide an opportunity for higher

education to a large number of students. It is worthwhile to note

here that spread of Legal Education is need of the hour and is a

pious duty of the State.

15. That a large number of student shall suffer if the number of

permissible admissions in LL.B. course at the Respondent No. 4 are

decreased and it will infringe their legal and Fundamental right to

have higher education of their choice.

16. The funds provided to the Delhi University from the money

collected from Tax payer, thus it is necessary that it is put to

optimum use. The same infrastructure of Law Faculty had been

catering 2310 students for more than four decades, then it is not

understandable to decrease the number of admissions.

17. That as a large number of students aspire to attain their education

from the Respondent No.3 and 4 and their right has been tried to be

curtailed by decreasing number of admissions in the Respondent

No. 4, the petitioner immediately on 17.05.2017 sent a

representation to the Respondents, however till date they have not

responded.

18. That the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court is sought to issue

appropriate writ, inter-alia, on the following grounds:-

GROUNDS.

A. Because the impugned Clause is ultra virus to the fundamental

rights as enshrined in Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

B. Because the impugned Clause infringes citizen’s Right to

Education, it is humbly submitted that to attain higher education is

part of Right to Life, thus the impugned Clause is violative of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the restriction placed by the

impugned clause to admit only upto 300 students in a law College

is totally unreasonable and violates Constitution of India.

C. Because the Students/citizens have a fundamental right to have

equal opportunity to achieve higher education and to study course

of their choice and the restriction placed by the impugned clause

does not have any intelligible diffrentia, thus is totally

unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary.

D. Because the restriction placed by the impugned clause is neither in

the nature of professional standardization nor in the nature of

technical standardization, thus the same is un-constitutional and

ultra virus.

E. Because the impugned Clause is violating the parent Act i.e. the

Advocates Act,1961. It is submitted that Section 7(h) and 7(i) of the

Advocate Act 1961 mandates promotion of legal education and to

lay down standards of such education and recognition of

University. The relevant section 7(h) and 7(i) are reproduced as

under:

S-7 (h)- “To promote legal education and to lay down

standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in

India, imparting such education and the State Bar Councils”;

S- 7 (i) “To recognize Universities whose degree in law shall

be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that

purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State Bar

Councils to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with such

directions as it may give in this behalf”;

The aforesaid provisions seek promotion of Legal Education,

thus by putting restriction to admit students upto permitted strength

the objective to promote legal education defeats. It is pertinent to

note here that none of the provisions of the enabling law Advocate

Act 1961 provides such a limitation on the number of admissible

students in a center of legal education.

F. Because the impugned clause is beyond the scope of rule

makinpower entrusted by the Advocates Act 1961.

G. Because the impugned Clause infringes the Public Policy as well as

Educational Policy, as these envisage education and equal

opportunity at all age levels and “at the pace suited to them”, the

same cannot be restricted by a rule making body to the detriment of

and without the backup/ express provision provided by the

Statutory laws. The role of Bar Council of India is to ensure

minimum infrastructural requirement which includes building

infrastructure like number of class rooms, availability of teachers,

library facilities etc., however the strength of admissible students

must be exclusive domain of concerned institution.

H. Because reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to

1440, the Respondents are infringing fundamental rights of students

aspiring to attain admission in the Respondent No.4 to study LL.B.

It is submitted action of reducing admissible students violates Right

to life as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India. The

said action also defeats basic principles of the Constitution of India.

I. Because reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to 1440

defeats the objective of establishing the Respondent No.3 and 4.

J. Because reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to 1440

is arbitrary and discriminatory and amounts to wastage of public

money. It is stated that the Respondent No.3 and 4 are public

funded educational institutions receiving grants from University

Grants Commission and by reducing number of admissions the

public money is not put on optimum use.The objective of

establishing public funded educational institutions is to provide an

opportunity for higher education to a large number of students. It is

worthwhile to note here that spread of Legal Education is need of

the hour and is a pious duty of the State.

K. Because by reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to

1440 in the Respondent No. 4, a large number of student shall

suffer and it will infringe their legal and Fundamental right to have

higher education of their choice.

L. Because the funds provided to the Respondent No. 3 and 4 from the

money collected from Tax payer, thus it is necessary that it is put to

optimum use. The same infrastructure of Respondent No. 4 had

been catering 2310 students for more than four decades, then by

reducing number of admissions the infrastructure shall be wasted.

M. Because there are only a few institutions which offer 3 year LL.B.

Course and among them the Respondent No. 4 is the best and more

particularly this is only institute in Delhi providing 3 year LL.B.

Course after graduation. The Respondent No. 2 has prohibited

lateral entry in 5 year LL.B. course for students seeking admission

in Law Course after their graduation, thus by reducing number of

permissible admissions in the Respondent No. 4, the respondents

are infringing students fundamental right.

N. Because by reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to

1440 in the Respondent No. 4 will cause not only economic effect

on the citizen but also has prevent them from attaining higher

education.

19. That the Petitioner seeks liberty from your Lordships to add and /or

delete and/or amend any of the grounds during the submissions

before this Hon’ble Court.

20. That the Petitioner has not filed any other Petition before this

Hon’ble Court and/or Hon’ble Supreme Court of India seeking

same or similar relief.

21. That this Hon’ble Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and

decide the present petition as the impugned infringement has taken

place within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER

In the light of the facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most

humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate

writ/direction/order thereby Striking down Clause 5 A of Schedule-

III of Rules of Legal Education 2008 as enacted by Bar Council of

India being arbitrary, capricious and violative of fundamental

rights.

(ii) Directing Respondents to admit 2310 students in the Respondent

No.4 and not to reduce number of admissible students.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper

in the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favor of the

Petitioner and against the Respondents.

It is prayed accordingly.

THROUGH

PETITIONER IN PERSON

JOGINDER SUKHIJA



New Delhi-110063

New Delhi

Date


WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017


IN THE MATTER OF :

JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA …..PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

INDEX

Sn. Particulars Page No.

1. Notice of Motion

2. Urgent Application

3. Memo of Parties

4. List of Dates and Events.

5. Public Interest Litigation Under Article 226 of

Constitution of India 1950 alongwith affidavit.

6. Annexure P-1(Colly): Copy of representation mailed

on 01.09.2016.

7. Annexure P-2: Copy of news

8. Application Under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with

Section 151 CPC on behalf of the petitioner seeking

ad-interim ex-parte stay order alongwith Affidavit.

9. Application under section 151 CPC for exemption

from filing legible/typed copy of certain annexures

alongwith affidavit.

10. Vakalatnama


JOGINDER SUKHIJA



New Delhi-110063

Delhi

Dated:


WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017


IN THE MATTER OF :


VERSUS


MEMO OF PARTIES

IN THE MATTER OF :

JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA

S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija



New Delhi-110063 ………PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Union of India,

Through its Secretary,

Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Shastri Bhavan,

New Delhi.

2. Bar Council of India,

Through its Chairman,

21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,

Near Bal Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110 002


email: [email protected]

5. University of Delhi



Through The Vice Chancellor

Maurice Nagar,Delhi


6. Faculty of Law,

Through its Dean,

University of Delhi,

Maurice Nagar,Delhi


…RESPONDENTS

THROUGH


JOGINDER SUKHIJA



New Delhi-110063

Delhi

Dated:


WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017


IN THE MATTER OF :


VERSUS


NOTICE OF MOTION

Sir,

The enclosed petition in the aforesaid matter as being filed on behalf of

the Petitioner and is likely to be listed on ________________ or any

date, thereafter. Please take notice accordingly.

THROUGH


JOGINDER SUKHIJA



New Delhi-110063

Delhi

Dated:


WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017


IN THE MATTER OF :


VERSUS


URGENT APPLICATION

Kindly treat this accompanying petition as an urgent one in

accordance with the High Court Rules and orders as the Petitioner is

seeking amendment of the impugned policy.

THROUGH


JOGINDER SUKHIJA



New Delhi-110063

Delhi

Dated:


WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017


IN THE MATTER OF :


VERSUS


APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH

SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

SEEKING AD-INTERIM DIRECTION.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Public Interest

Litigation under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The contents

of the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and may

be read with part and parcel of this application.

2. That the need of the hour is granting education to maximum

students using the public money to enhance education amongst

youth of the country.

3. That there exists prima-facie case in favour of the Petitioner as the

same is in interest of public at large.

4. That the Public at large shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in

case the interim order as prayed is not granted in its favour.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may kindly be

pleased to

(A) Pass an ad-interim ex-parte order thereby directing Respondents to

admit 2310 students in the Respondent No.4 and not to reduce

number of admissible students;

Or

(B) Any other order as this Hon’ble court deems fit


THROUGH


JOGINDER SUKHIJA



New Delhi-110063

Delhi

Dated:


WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017


IN THE MATTER OF :


VERSUS


APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE

LEGIBLE/TYPED/CERTIFIED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS, ON

BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Public Interest

Litigation under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The

contents of the same are not repeated herein for the sake of

brevity and may be read with part and parcel of this application.

2. That the petitioner also despite best effort has not been able to

get legible copies of the some documents.

3. That in view of the same present application is being moved

praying that the Hon’ble Court may exempt the petitioner from

filing the legible copies of certain documents.

4. That the present application is bonafide and may be allowed in

the interest of justice.

PRAYER:

In the facts and circumstances submitted herein above, it is, therefore,

most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice

may be pleased to:

A. Petitioner may be exempted from filing the

legible/typed/certified copies of certain documents.

B. Pass such other or further orders, as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the

present case in favour of the petitioner.


THROUGH


JOGINDER SUKHIJA



New Delhi-110063

Delhi

Dated:


WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017


IN THE MATTER OF :


VERSUS


Affidavit

I, Joginder Sukhija, s/o. Prabhu Dayal, age about years, R/o 174, IInd

Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110063, do hereby

solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above state matter and being well

conversant with the facts of the case is as such competent to

depose and swear the present affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying

Application and the contents of the same are correct to my

knowledge and as per records, the same has been drafted by my

counsel under my instruction.

Deponent

Verification:

I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of

the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and

nothing material has been kept concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of May 2017.

Deponent


WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017


IN THE MATTER OF :


VERSUS


Affidavit







2. That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying

Application and the contents of the same are correct to my

knowledge and as per records, the same has been drafted by my

counsel under my instruction.

Deponent

Verification:





Deponent


WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017


IN THE MATTER OF :


VERSUS


Affidavit







2. That I have filed the present petition as Public Interest

Litigation.

3. That I have gone through the High Court (public Interest

Litigation) Rules, 2010 and do hereby affirm that the present

Public Interest Litigation is in conformity thereof.

4. That the petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and

neither myself nor anybody who the petitioner is interested

would in any manner benefit from the relief sought in the

present petition save as the member of general public. The

petition is not guided by self gain or gain of any person,

institution, body or there is no motive other than of public

interest in filing the present petition.

5. That I have done whatsoever enquiry/investigation which was in

my power to do to collect all data/material which was relevant

for this court to entertain the present petition. I further confirm

that I have not concealed in the present petition any

data/material/information which may have enabled this court to

form an opinion whether to entertain this petition or not and/or

whether to grant any relief or not.

6. That the documents filed along with the petition are true copies

of their originals.

Deponent

Verification:





Deponent

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

1924 The Respondent no.4, Faculty of Law has been a

leader in the field of legal education in India and

continues to be so till date.

1970 Law Centre-I was established with the demand for

increase in the number of students to be admitted in

the Law Faculty

1971 Law Centre-II

1975 Campus Law centre was established

17.05.2017 The Petitioner filed representations with the

Respondents through E-mails, however has not

received any response from Respondents. The

representation was mailed on 17.05.2017

in the high court of delhi at new ... - indian … manankumarmishra@ ... of delhi was decided much...

Documents