New Delhi: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has assailed parliamentarian and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s suggestion of taking away the responsibility to regulate the legal profession from the apex disciplinary body for lawyers.
In a statement signed by its chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, BCI described Singhvi’s statement as baseless and uncalled for, malafide with a “hidden agenda and ulterior motive”. The BCI also said the senior counsel’s idea that the legal profession should be regulated by some academicians was “unfortunate”.
The statement further said that Singhvi made the suggestion in order to “sell the Indian legal education at the hands of a few so-called managers”.
Speaking at a two-day conference organised by the American Bar Association (ABA), Singhvi had called for a national assessment body, which is independent of the BCI, or a separate broad-based group comprising academics, to supervise legal education in the country. The conference was inaugurated by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud.
BCI, which is an autonomous body, is responsible for regulating the legal profession and education in India. No legal institution can be established without getting BCI’s approval. Under the Advocates Act, BCI is the appellate body that hears appeals against decisions taken by state bar councils in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
Singhvi had pointed out the “immense responsibilities” of BCI, including law reform, disciplining lawyers, legal education and the vicissitudes of electoral politics. He then said that due to a “wide range of these functions there might have been situations where compromises have to be made”.
“The elephant in the room must be addressed,” the senior counsel had said.
The BCI said that Singhvi’s comments were made at the instance of an unidentified person who has been posing himself in the international arena as someone responsible for improvement of legal education and profession in India. The apex body said two other law teachers/managers of private institutions have also been projecting themselves as “the harbinger of Indian legal education and legal profession” on international platforms.
BCI said it had “patiently overlooked and ignored” these “mischiefs,” but Singhvi’s statement has made it “crystal clear” that people like him made “gains and are dancing to the tune of the aforementioned managers” of one or two centers of legal education.
Also read: Fast-track courts for rape and POCSO cases effective, govt likely to extend scheme for 3 yrs
‘Superiority complex of foreign education’
Advising Singhvi to shed his “superiority complex of foreign education,” the BCI questioned the senior counsel for not making any contribution for its welfare.
“We have never found these senior advocates, who are earning crores and crores, doing any pro bono service or doing anything for the welfare of younger generation or helping members of the bar. In US, there is a concept of doing certain hours of pro bono service. What is the actual contribution of such people in society. Why don’t they take a cue/hint from such bars and do the same,” the BCI’s statement added.
BCI also said it was going to make it mandatory for every advocate to put in pro bono hours of service for the underprivileged.
It criticised Singhvi, who is a member of BCI’s advisory board, for making the statement without knowing the “truth about measures” taken by the BCI and gave out details of its Legal Education Committee (LEC) – a high-powered committee that is headed by a former CJI and is responsible for streamlining measures to improve legal education.
The academicians in this committee are nominated rotation-wise and comprises members from National Law Universities (NLU) as well as private varsities. There are inspecting teams as well as an advisory board to assist the LEC, the BCI added.
The BCI also batted for promotion of “Indian education system” and termed the existing structure as robust, while adding that the bar has been doing its best to stop the practice of students going abroad for higher studies in the legal field.
The apex legal body condemned those who did not “allow the Indian languages, Indian culture, Indian civilisation to flourish,” because of which, it said, “foreign languages and foreign education systems are still prevailing in our country”.
Also read: EC appointments: SC says it’s a ‘myth’ court can’t make law, no strict separation of powers in India