The Bench of Justices S Murlidhar and C Hari Shankar also directed the BCI to take the decision on the representation made by the University against reduction of seats in a fresh manner without relying on any previous orders.
Speaking to the press, Prof Kumari stated that she is optimistic about the findings of the Legal Education Committee.
“We feel that the inspection team was quite happy with what they saw.”
The matter was first brought to the Court’s notice through a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Joginder Kumar Sukhija . He claimed that the decision to reduce the LL.B. seats in DU would adversely affect a large number of aspirants and that DU and Faculty of Law were public funded educational institutions receiving grants from the University Grants Commission. By reducing the number of admissions, he argued, public money was not being put to optimum use.
The BCI, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide its letter dated June 7, had accused the petitioner of being guilty of professional misconduct as he did not disclose that he had appeared as a counsel in another similar writ petition seeking several reliefs which were eventually not granted by the court.
After Sukhija stated that these are intimidating tactics employed by the BCI, the Court today observed that the BCI should not have made such statements regarding the petitioner and that the other matter was on a different footing altogether.
The BCI counsel conceded by saying that such statements should not have been made and that the BCI would be careful in the future.
The matter will be next heard on June 27.
News Source - Bar & Bench