0
0
The Bar Council of India’s notification dated 24th September 2024 is yet another incident in the trend of systemic assault on democratic spaces among India’s students and their freedom. This notification is unsustainable, impracticable and undemocratic. In this article, Com. Adrija writes against these measures pushed in the notification, which put forth unreasonable restrictions on law students. These measures must be situated in the fascist onslaught on student freedoms in India and must be looked at in the context of BCI Chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra’s membership in the BJP, which has always sought to curb student dissent in the face of its anti-people policies.
On 24th September 2024, the Bar Council of India released a Notification (BCI:D:5186/2024 (LE Circular No.13/2024) titled Implementation of Criminal Background Check System, Declaration Regarding Simultaneous Degree and/or regular Academic Programs, Employment status, Attendance Compliance, and Biometric Attendance, & Installation of CCTV cameras, in all Centers of Legal Education.
The above-mentioned notification is a part of a series of events in a trend of increasing curtailment of democratic space and student freedom across campuses in India.
At the very outset, the purpose or rationale behind this notification is itself not clear. Neither are the objectives of this in any way decipherable nor is there a link between the objectives or the drastic measures taken. The Bar council, in the conclusion of the notification, emphasises on the standards of ethics, integrity and accountability in the legal profession- the question arises: Why does the BCI not hold itself to these standards and be transparent and accountable to the public in its affairs? Why was a notification with such wide and potentially life-changing ramifications for hundreds of law students released so abruptly and without any consultations?
It is also interesting to note that the notification came right during a period of significant hardship among law students- the students at RGNUL Patiala had just started their protests against the sexist behaviour of their vice-chancellor, while NLU Delhi had seen its Third student suicide. Instead of acknowledging it (let alone intervening in the interests of student welfare), the BCI chose to implement further restrictions and surveillance on law students.
The rule requiring law students to declare any criminal records before release of final marksheet is outright bizarre- why are students of specifically one subject required to declare criminal antecedents, with their degree being witheld for not doing so? Why is this not applicable to those in other fields as well?
In the 21st Century, with criminal justice administrations across the world placing an emphasis of restorative and rehabilitative justice, the Bar Council has placed a barrier for people having a criminal record from pursuing a major field of study.
Today, when jails across India have provided their inmates with many distance learning and educational opportunities, what is the rationale behind withholding degrees or marksheets for not declaring criminal antecedents and needing BCI clearance to even have the degree one has worked on for years? How does the existence of a criminal record impact one’s performance as a law student or lawyer?
Moreover, today when the police-state nexus has been weaponised against those raising their voice against the fascist anti-people BJP Government, it is not paranoia to see how this requirement will be used against dissidents from law schools.
The requirement for biometric attendance and CCTVs in classrooms to ensure attendance is completely at odds with Puttaswamy and violates the rights of students to privacy. There is a lack of clarity of what is the objective behind these regulations.
Is the problem of low attendance and proxies really so deep seated and grave that it requires such infringement in the privacy of both students and professors? Have any less intrusive measures been considered or taken before this?
It also must be mentioned that we, as law students, are well aware of the consequences of not maintaining minimum attendance on our academic records. Most often, absences occur due to physical or mental health concerns, overburden of work, and lack of quality teaching in particular subjects. Instead of addressing these concerns, the BCI chose to take such intrusive measures to arm-twist students into sitting in class.
The measure of not allowing students to pursue an alternate degree or job while enrolled in a Law program without approval from the college just highlights ignorance of today’s educational scenario by the BCI. In this time, where most prominent law colleges have increased their fees, even doubling or tripling it, and in the absence of comprehensive scholarship programs in colleges, students are often left with a choice of either having to take educational loans or to work while pursuing their degree.
This requirement, which is ostensibly in the interest of academic rigor (keeping the futility of that phrase aside) further makes legal education inaccessible for those who do not come from generational wealth.
These regulations also require CLEs to invest a significant amount of resources in order to comply with them, which a lot of colleges do not have. To do so, in the age of fund cuts to education, these colleges will be forced to increase their fees, further making legal education inaccessible to those from economically disadvantaged background. There is a plethora of fake law colleges in this country who promise degrees without the student needing to ever attend classes. Why have such sweeping regulations been implemented without addressing these problems in India’s legal education? These regulations are nothing but more pressure on the already limited resources of India’s law colleges (ofcourse barring elite institutions like NLUs, Jindal etc) and as such, are not something that can be (or should be) effectively implemented.
In conclusion, this notification is seriously flawed, unsustainable, and against the interests of law students and should be withdrawn immediately. We urge progressive-minded law students and concerned citizens to raise their voices against this undemocratic and unconstitutional measure by the BCI.
Com. Adrija is a 2nd year BA-LLB student at NLUD, and a member of COLLECTIVE Delhi.
