Bar Council of India issues advisory against unapproved online LLM programmes
New Delhi [India], June 29 (ANI): In a decisive step toward preserving the credibility of legal education in India, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a formal advisory against the proliferation of unapproved LL.M. (Master of Laws) programmes offered in online, distance, or hybrid formats. This advisory reinforces the exclusive regulatory role of the BCI and emphasizes compliance with existing legal and academic frameworks.
The letter, authored by Justice Rajendra Menon, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and Co-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legal Education, was addressed to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India. Copies of the letter were also circulated to universities and State Bar Councils to ensure compliance and initiate appropriate action.
The advisory reiterates the binding authority of Supreme Court rulings, the UGC (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2020, and BCI's own Legal Education Rules (2008 and 2020), under which LL.M. programmes must secure prior approval before being conducted via non-traditional methods. Any deviation, it warns, threatens the standard, uniformity, and legal sanctity of postgraduate legal education across the country.
Letter issued in this regards stated that, alarmed by the growing number of institutions offering programmes under alternative titles such as LL.M. (Professional), Executive LL.M., or M.Sc. in Cyber Law, the BCI has highlighted that many of these courses are being run without mandatory approvals. Such practices, it stated, not only violate Supreme Court directives but also mislead students and degrade academic quality.
The Bar Council clarified that under the Advocates Act, 1961, it is the only statutory authority empowered to regulate both undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes. No other entity--including UGC or autonomous universities--can validate LL.M. courses independently. The Council emphasized that an LL.M. degree is the minimum qualification required for teaching law, and therefore any relaxation in quality or regulatory compliance directly affects the legal profession.
In light of these violations, the BCI has urged High Courts take judicial notice of the BCI's exclusive authority in legal education, Reject qualifications obtained from unapproved LL.M. programmes for appointments or promotions and
Require institutions and individuals to submit compliance verification from the BCI where necessary.
To protect students and uphold public trust, the Bar Council plans to release a public advisory cautioning against enrollment in such unauthorized programmes. It is also preparing to initiate contempt proceedings and other legal measures against institutions found violating these guidelines. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Need to address statistical issues in entrance, recruitment exams: NSC Chairman to government
The government has been called on to form a comprehensive policy on certain statistical issues related to entrance and recruitment exams by Rajeeva Laxman Karandikar, Chairman of the National Statistical Commission (NSC), who argued on Sunday that different agencies conducting their own exams have their own methods that can lead to dissatisfaction among candidates and legal proceedings. Speaking at the 19th Statistics Day organised by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), Karandikar said statistical issues such as negative marking and normalisation of marks in examinations that are being conducted online and see lakhs of candidates should be addressed 'appropriately'. 'The fact that when such a large number (of candidates) appear (for exams), we don't have computer systems which simultaneously 27 lakh candidates can write,' Karandikar said, referring to an earlier recruitment exam held by the railways. 'So we have parallel exams, or exams in phases, different question papers. Then the question comes: how do we compare them? This is a strictly statistical question.' 'Somehow, each agency goes on its own way to define the policy: there is a question of negative marking, normalisation. And each agency declares its own formula which is different. That leads to dissatisfaction, especially from the candidates that don't make it, some of them making it to the court system,' the NSC Chairman added. In 2019, Karandikar was part of an expert committee constituted by the Supreme Court to suggest ways to deal with fraud in online examinations. The committee – led by retired Supreme Court justice GS Singhvi – was formed after the alleged leak of the Staff Selection Commission's Combined Graduate Level 2017 question papers, which led to massive protests. On Sunday, Karandikar said the expert committee had written a report just before COVID 'and perhaps that report is lying somewhere'. 'The point is that normalisation and negative marking, both are statistical questions. And perhaps – which body in government, I don't know, because there are multiple stakeholders – comprehensive effort should be made to create one group which gives thought to all this, brings in all the stakeholders, and comes out with one policy,' Karandikar added. 'Precision policymaking' Moderating a panel discussion at the Statistics Day event – held to commemorate the birth anniversary of famed statistician PC Mahalanobis – Shamika Ravi, member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, said India was moving into an era of 'precision policymaking'. According to Ravi, given the size of the country, indicators such as the infant mortality rate and even the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) don't mean much at an all-India level, although such measures are needed for comparisons. 'But the reality is, policymaking largely depends on highly localised estimates, which is the effort we are now doing. We are moving towards district-level estimates because a lot of policymaking requires local, unbiased, as precise or as close to the truth – that's what an unbiased estimate is… We are moving into the realm of what is called precision policymaking. And precision policymaking, then and therefore, requires data which is representative at the local level, whatever local we define. We have now moved beyond aspirational districts to aspirational blocks,' Ravi said. Also speaking at the same event, MoSPI Secretary Saurabh Garg said it was essential the statistics ministry produces data which is 'machine readable' given the advent of artificial intelligence and machine learning and follows basic standards and norms so that data can be more effectively used for decision making. Towards this, the ministry is looking at data and statistics at a much broader level, Garg said, with a focus on ensuring that the data produced by different departments and ministries within the government – or administrative data – is focused and usable. Siddharth Upasani is a Deputy Associate Editor with The Indian Express. He reports primarily on data and the economy, looking for trends and changes in the former which paint a picture of the latter. Before The Indian Express, he worked at Moneycontrol and financial newswire Informist (previously called Cogencis). Outside of work, sports, fantasy football, and graphic novels keep him busy. ... Read More
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects Lalit Modi's plea seeking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 cr ED penalty
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by former cricket administrator Lalit Modi, who had sought a direction to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (Fema), reported news agency PTI. A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan upheld the Bombay High Court's earlier decision, which had rejected Modi's petition and imposed costs, but clarified that Modi may pursue appropriate civil remedies if he chooses. Bombay HC called petition frivolous and misconceived The case stemmed from a December 19, 2023, ruling by the Bombay High Court, which dismissed Lalit Modi's plea as 'frivolous and misconceived' and directed him to pay ₹1 lakh to Tata Memorial Hospital within four weeks. The high court held that the Fema penalty had been imposed on Modi in his personal capacity and not in connection with any public function or statutory duty. Therefore, the court found no legal basis for asking the BCCI to bear the penalty on his behalf. Modi had argued that during his tenure as BCCI vice-president and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council, the board was bound to indemnify him under its internal regulations. He maintained that the penalty arose from actions carried out in his official capacity. No writ against BCCI under Article 12 The high court also observed that despite this legal position being well established, Modi filed the petition in 2018 seeking a writ remedy that was not available in law.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Supreme Court rejects Lalit Modi's plea asking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 crore FEMA penalty
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former cricket administrator Lalit Modi's plea seeking an order directing the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a penalty of ₹ 10.65 crore imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan ruled that Lalit Modi could pursue civil remedies available under the law but refused to compel the BCCI to bear the penalty amount. This Supreme Court decision follows a December 19, 2023, ruling by the Bombay High Court which had termed Lalit Modi's petition 'frivolous and wholly misconceived,' while imposing a cost of ₹ 1 lakh on him. The Bombay High Court had observed that the penalty was personally imposed on Lalit Modi by the adjudicating authority under FEMA, and there was no legal basis to direct the BCCI to pay the fine. Lalit Modi had contended that during his tenure as the BCCI's vice-president and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council—a subcommittee of the BCCI—the board was obliged under its bylaws to indemnify him for actions taken in his official capacity. However, the Bombay High Court referred to a 2005 Supreme Court judgment clarifying that the BCCI does not qualify as a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Bombay HC held that no writ could be issued against the BCCI in matters unrelated to the discharge of public functions. 'In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI,' the High Court had stated. Despite clear directions from the Supreme Court, Lalit Modi had filed the petition in 2018, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court on Monday, 30 June, upheld this dismissal, reiterating that Lalit Modi's plea was without merit. The court also directed Lalit Modi to deposit ₹ 1 lakh as costs to the Tata Memorial Hospital within four weeks.
