Clause 6 of Rules of the Legal Education – 2008 of Bar Council of India is reproduced below.
“6. Prohibition to register for two regular courses of study.
No student shall be allowed to simultaneously register for a law degree program with any other graduation or post graduation or certificate course run by the same or any other University or an Institute for academic or professional learning excepting in the integrated degree program of the same institution. Provided that any short period part time certificate course on language, computer science or computer application of an Institute or any course run by a Centre for Distance Learning of a University however, shall be excepted.”
As per the above clause, a Law student cannot pursue any other academic/professional course. Many students of C.A./C.W.A/C.S. course intending to pursue Law course simultaneously as an additional or necessary supplementary qualification are adversely affected by the above rule.
It is submitted that the said restriction is harsh/ unreasonable and unfair for the following reasons.
i) There is already a restriction on pursuing more than one University course. Thus, effectively the above restriction remains applicable only to the courses of the Institutes.
ii) The expression “Institute” is not defined in the Rules.
Thus, the prohibition is a sweeping one. Some Institutes are statutory. Some are either run or recognised by the various administrative Ministries of Central/State Governments. Some others are purely private. The examples, other than of ICAI/ICWA/ICSI, are of Insurance Institute of India and Indian Institute of Bankers. These Institutes are running the academic courses which are mostly pursued by insurance and bank employees.
iii) The above restriction appears to be proceeding on the premises that Law course is pursued only for the practice in Law. The fact is that the same is pursued by majority as an additional or necessary supplementary qualification.
iv) A student of three years Law course can be in the full time employment, but cannot pursue other courses as above.
v) Even if a person is qualified for practice in more than one discipline, he/she can practice only in one discipline. It is therefore unreasonable to put restriction at the qualifying stage.
vi) In the case of any course, after completing the tuition period, one may be required to only appear for exams for completing the course for a long period. It is not clarified during what period a Law student can be said to be pursuing other courses.
vii) While a University student, whether for graduate or post graduate studies in other branches can simultaneously pursue a non-University course, a student of Law course, which is essentially a University course, cannot do so.
viii) There is an uncertainty about completing any particular course. By curtailing the options, the career prospects of a student gets adversely affected.
The inbuilt exemption to distant learning courses is quite logical. But it is applicable only to a University. It is a different thing that it may come into the clutches of a University’s own rules. However, if the said that exemption to distant learning education is extended to the Institutes also, the situation can be substantially salvaged. The issue is highlighted for the attention of various Institutes, academicians and prominent professionals for their consideration and pursuing it further, if and as may be deemed appropriate.
At the most, if at all the prohibition is to be applied, it should be restricted to the five year course and not for the three year course of LLB. Further, depriving the law students from acquiring indepth knowledge of accountancy, costing, corporate laws etc. would eventually be to their own detriment. In the present day world, multi-disciplinary knowledge is not only desirable, but essential. …………..
