Bar–Council’s exam frenzy
Queries on BCI exam
1) Is not the rule being brought ultra vires the Act.
2. Can a Rule meant to achieve what Act envisage instead enlarge it ?
3. Is the rule not being implemented retrospectively. Yet to be notified, but applies to students who have already completed curriculum
4. How does law ministry be party to this lawless-law(?!)
· 2) Does it not mean all advocates enrolled can not practice since the time of notification of this joke till results are announced. Clarification in second sentence does not qualify first sentence. for if the bar wanted it to apply to students of 2009-10 only that sentence was sufficient.
· clarification did not absolve advocates from taking examination,
· 3) does it not violate Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
· 4) There is no class amongst advocates enrolled as students of 2009-10 batch to be below standard.
· Take a case of 4 persons enrolling in July 2010.
· a) rank student, top mooter, writer from 2009-10 batch, freshly studied all procedures, laws. not allowed to practice
· b) student from 2007-08 batch, who failed all subjects and finally cleared his exams. can enroll and practice NWS that he is from the same stinking system which is being tackled through 1 single cleansing exam
· c) a law graduate passed exam in 1973 and been working in some govt. office doing accounts (live case) not having knowledge of current laws, not remembering well what was studied and from the same system. can enroll and practice
· d) an advocate enrolled in 2009-10 and who is also from same system, but he is not well versed with procedures and been very average student.
On what basis out of the four, one would select only 2009-10 batch student to be below quality and make a class of them?
· 5) objective is to reform legal education -
1. action is by the very same body controlling legal education for decades.
2. It says education controlled by it is not bringing quality.
3. It now says creating 31st exam will bring in quality(when approx. 30 exams by the very same body controlled education is admittedly bringing out stench of bad lawyering for decades)
4. how Rain maker is better than any university or authority in India. Are we saying educational institutions in India like IIT, IIM, MIT, IISc not creating world class competitive output that we need a singapore company to come in and conduct exams.
5. If this is the confidence level of BCI about law education providing institutions that they are not fit to conduct exams which can be trusted, why they must be allowed to continue to impart legal education
6. Does not BCI admit that it is inefficient and not able to regulate legal education curriculum, syllabus, examination or education standards for decades.
7. If this is the inference that can be derived, should BCI continue to control the legal education?
A parallel exam process is expected to bring quality than the main study and exam process
1. Does Keeping a concubine itself will correct the misbehaving wife? how a new exam can make everything all right?
2. If this is possible, why BCI did not think of making it part of curriculum and make students take it in normal study period of 3 years
3. By not doing it still it admits that any curricular change will not bring quality as law educating universities/institutions are uncontrollable and untrustworthy - speaks of inefficiency of BCI and is defamatory on legal educational institutions
4. why it preferred to make a rule ultra vires the law, than making it into the syllabus
5. what was the hurry to make it applicable to current batch while next year students or best 3 year later who will come out, taking this examination on their last year of college.
1. Rain maker, Singapore company, has in their board Indian lawyers founding it as well on Board.
2. Who proposed, was there any string pulling or benefit to vested interest.
3. Was the process transparent and involved opportunity to indian firms?
4. There are many who conduct exams for BITS, GRE, CAT etc . were other institutions, exam facilitators considered.?
5. Can there be a clear declaration from rain maker and BCI, that there are no present or past office bearers of BCI, ministry officials, ministers, legislators and/or their relatives not involved in rainmaker organisation (to make it their grain maker)
Hope i made it clear enough. I am contemplating Art32/226 writ to oppose this law