New Delhi: A broad coalition of lawyers, law teachers, law students, and concerned citizens have written a letter and raised serious concerns over the recent notification issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) on September 24, 2024.
The notification, titled “Implementation of Criminal Background Check System, Declaration Regarding Simultaneous Degree and/or Regular Academic Programs, Employment Status, Attendance Compliance, Biometric Attendance, and Installation of CCTV Cameras in Law Colleges,” mandates a series of intrusive measures that have sparked a wave of criticism from the legal community across the country.
The letter, addressed to BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and Secretary Srimanto Sen, raises concerns about the "illegality and unconstitutionality" of the notification. The signatories are urging the BCI to immediately withdraw these provisions, citing serious violations of constitutional rights.
These regulations, which affect all centers of legal education, have been met with calls for immediate withdrawal, arguing that they are unconstitutional, impractical, and violate students' privacy rights.
The letter has garnered support from various legal professionals and activists across states like Delhi, Kerala, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Gujarat, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu.
The notification issued by the BCI stipulates several measures that raise questions about their objectives and legal validity. The BCI has stated that the regulations are in response to judicial observations regarding the need to monitor the background of law students. However, it has failed to provide any details regarding the specific case or judicial remarks that prompted the regulation. This lack of clarity about the intent and justification for the regulations has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters.
One of the most controversial aspects of the notification is the requirement for law students to disclose any ongoing criminal cases, FIRs, convictions, or even acquittals before receiving their final marksheet or degree.
Critics argue that this provision is discriminatory, as it applies solely to law students and not to students in other disciplines. Additionally, there is no legal basis for withholding academic qualifications based on criminal antecedents, especially when individuals involved in legal proceedings can still pursue education, as seen in the case of undertrials and prisoners who pursue higher education.
Furthermore, the BCI’s mandate for law colleges to conduct “thorough criminal background checks” on students is seen as an overreach. The critics argue that this measure is not only impractical but also unnecessary, as it imposes significant financial and administrative burdens on law colleges without providing any tangible benefits. The BCI has failed to explain how these measures will contribute to enhancing the quality of legal education or addressing the purported concerns regarding criminal backgrounds.
Another highly contentious provision in the notification is the requirement for biometric attendance and the installation of CCTV cameras in classrooms. This regulation has been described as an invasion of privacy, especially in light of recent legal rulings such as the Puttaswamy judgment, which upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. Critics argue that the imposition of biometric surveillance and CCTV monitoring does not meet the test of proportionality and fails to justify the intrusion into students' personal privacy.
Moreover, the BCI has not provided any evidence to show that the problem of low attendance or proxy attendance in law colleges is widespread enough to warrant such drastic measures. Instead, the focus should be on improving the quality of education and addressing systemic issues such as poor infrastructure, outdated curriculum, and the proliferation of “fake” law colleges that exploit students. The introduction of biometric attendance and CCTV surveillance, according to critics, is an unnecessary response to a non-existent problem.
Furthermore, the BCI’s failure to mention privacy safeguards for the sensitive data collected from biometric systems and CCTV footage is deeply concerning. The lack of accountability regarding the security of such data raises questions about the potential for data misuse or breaches, with no clear mechanisms in place to protect students' privacy.
In light of these concerns, a growing number of legal professionals, law students, and activists have demanded the immediate withdrawal of the notification. They have emphasized that such sweeping regulations should not be implemented without public consultation or the backing of a law passed by Parliament. The legal community has called for an open and transparent process, where all stakeholders can engage in discussions about feasible, practical, and legal rules that address real concerns in the field of legal education.
The coalition of critics has also pointed out that many law students, especially those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, may face hardships due to these new regulations. For instance, some students might need to take on part-time jobs to support their education, and penalizing them for not disclosing their employment status or criminal antecedents could unfairly disadvantage them.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.