IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. Bar Council of India, Through its Chairman, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi 110 002 E-mail ID: info@barcouncilofindia.org email: manankumarmishra@gmail.com 3. University of Delhi Through The Vice Chancellor Maurice Nagar,Delhi E-mail ID: vc@du.ac.in 4. Faculty of Law, Through its Dean,
University of Delhi, Maurice Nagar,Delhi E-mail ID: lawfaculty@gmail.com RESPONDENTS IN THE MATTER OF: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND IN THE MATTER OF: CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF CLAUSE 5 A OF SCHEDULE III OF RULES OF LEGAL EDUCATION 2008 AS ENACTED BY BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA UNDER SECTIONS 7(1)(h) AND (i), 24(1)(c)(iii), AND (iiia), 49(1)(af),(ag), AND (d) OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961; AND IN THE MATTER OF: VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; AND WRIT PETITION IN THE NATURE OF PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING INDULGENCE OF THIS HON BLE COURT TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE MANDAMUS AND/OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/DIRECTION/ORDER THEREBY DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO ADMIT 2310 STUDENTS IN LAW FACULTY, DELHI UNIVERSITY
To The Hon ble Chief Justice And His Companion Judges Delhi High Court,New Delhi Most Respectfully Showeth : THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER IS AS UDNER: 1. That the Petitioner is a bonafide citizen of India and is invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court for the public interest as he does not have any personal interest involve in the present litigation. It is stated that the present petition is not guided by self gain or for gain to any other person/institution/body. It is stated that the Petitioner has no motive other than of Public Interest in filing the present Writ Petition. 2. That the Petitioner has come to know about the facts stated in the present petition after reading and watching news in media and also through information available on Television, newspapers, internet etc. The Petitioner has filed representations in this regard, however the Respondents are not responding. 3. That the present Writ Petition has been filed for the benefit of large number of citizens who have suffered due to wrong policy of admissions adopted by the Colleges affiliated with the Respondent No.3. It is humbly submitted that all such persons are not able to approach this Hon ble Court to seek the relief claimed in the present petition, as most of them are students. That the present petition, as per the knowledge of the Petitioner shall not adversely affect any person/body/institution. 4. That the Petitioner is a law graduate from Campus Law Center, Delhi University and Lawyer/Advocate by profession having great interest in the Social Issues. It is stated that the Petitioner has the means to pay the cost, if any, imposed by this Hon ble Court.
5. That before filing the present Petition, the Petitioner filed representations with the Respondents through E-mails, however has not received any response from Respondents. The representation was mailed on 17.05.2017. Copies thereof is annexed as ANNEXURE P-1 (Colly). 6. That the Petitioner has previously filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing petition no. W.P (C) 7871/2016 and W.P (C) 4581/2017, both are pending adjudication before this Hon ble Court. 7. That the Respondent No.1 is engaged in bringing world class opportunities of higher education and research to the student of India and is engaged in formulating the National Policy on Education and to ensure that it is implemented in letter and spirit 8. That the Respondent No.2 is a statutory body created by Parliament to regulate and represent the Indian bar. It performs the regulatory function by prescribing standards of professional conduct and etiquette and by exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over the bar. It also sets standards for legal education and grants recognition to Universities whose degree in law will serve as qualification for enrolment as an advocate. 9. That the Respondent No.3 is central university financed by public funds, the Respondent No.4, Faculty of Law has been a leader in the field of legal education in India since its inception in 1924 and continues to be so till date. With the demand for increase in the number of students to be admitted in the Law Faculty, Law Centre- I was established in 1970, Law Centre-II in 1971, and Campus Law Centre in 1975. 10. That the Petitioner was shocked to read a News item on 17.05.2017 in Indian Express news paper that the Respondent No.2, has imposed a condition this year that the Respondent No. 4, Law Faculty cannot admit more than 1,440 students in all its three centres though in all previous years the Law Faculty had been admitting 2310 students. A copy of the news downloaded from internet is annexed as ANNEXURE P-2.
11. That as per information available on the Website of Respondent No.3 has invited applications from eligible candidates to fill 126 vacant positions in Respondent No.4, Law faculty, a copy of information available on website is annexed as ANNEXURE P-3. 12. That the Respondent No.2 may impose condition to decrease strength of each law center of Respondent No.4 by invoking provisions contained in clause 5A of Schedule III of the Legal Education Rules,2008, a copy of Legal Education Rules,2008 is annexed as ANNEXURE P-4. The clause 5 A reads as under:- 5A. Size of a section : The Inspection Committee may approve for admission in each of the section of a class for not more than 60 students and may allow a minimum of two sections in each class but not more than five sections in one class (such as First Year or Second Year or Third Year, etc) as the case may be unless there is any exceptional reason for granting more sections in a Class, such a reason has to be specified by the inspection Committee.. 13. That the provisions of clause 5 A of Schedule III of the Legal Education Rules,2008, herein after refered to as the impugned clause, are wrongly applied in present case as the strength of permissible admissions in each centre of Law Faculty, University of Delhi was decided much prior to the enactment of the Legal Education Rules, 2008. The provisions of clause 5 A of Schedule III of the Legal Education Rules,2008 are infringing fundamental rights of citizens seeking admission in Respondent No.4, hence are assailed as unconstitutional in present petition. 14. That the Respondent No.3 and 4 are public funded educational institutions receiving grants from University Grants Commission and by reducing number of admissions the public money is not put on optimum use.the objective of establishing public funded educational institutions is to provide an opportunity for higher education to a large number of students. It is worthwhile to note
here that spread of Legal Education is need of the hour and is a pious duty of the State. 15. That a large number of student shall suffer if the number of permissible admissions in LL.B. course at the Respondent No. 4 are decreased and it will infringe their legal and Fundamental right to have higher education of their choice. 16. The funds provided to the Delhi University from the money collected from Tax payer, thus it is necessary that it is put to optimum use. The same infrastructure of Law Faculty had been catering 2310 students for more than four decades, then it is not understandable to decrease the number of admissions. 17. That as a large number of students aspire to attain their education from the Respondent No.3 and 4 and their right has been tried to be curtailed by decreasing number of admissions in the Respondent No. 4, the petitioner immediately on 17.05.2017 sent a representation to the Respondents, however till date they have not responded. 18. That the indulgence of this Hon ble Court is sought to issue appropriate writ, inter-alia, on the following grounds:- GROUNDS. A. Because the impugned Clause is ultra virus to the fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. B. Because the impugned Clause infringes citizen s Right to Education, it is humbly submitted that to attain higher education is part of Right to Life, thus the impugned Clause is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the restriction placed by the impugned clause to admit only upto 300 students in a law College is totally unreasonable and violates Constitution of India. C. Because the Students/citizens have a fundamental right to have equal opportunity to achieve higher education and to study course of their choice and the restriction placed by the impugned clause
does not have any intelligible diffrentia, thus is totally unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary. D. Because the restriction placed by the impugned clause is neither in the nature of professional standardization nor in the nature of technical standardization, thus the same is un-constitutional and ultra virus. E. Because the impugned Clause is violating the parent Act i.e. the Advocates Act,1961. It is submitted that Section 7(h) and 7(i) of the Advocate Act 1961 mandates promotion of legal education and to lay down standards of such education and recognition of University. The relevant section 7(h) and 7(i) are reproduced as under: S-7 (h)- To promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India, imparting such education and the State Bar Councils ; S- 7 (i) To recognize Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State Bar Councils to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with such directions as it may give in this behalf ; The aforesaid provisions seek promotion of Legal Education, thus by putting restriction to admit students upto permitted strength the objective to promote legal education defeats. It is pertinent to note here that none of the provisions of the enabling law Advocate Act 1961 provides such a limitation on the number of admissible students in a center of legal education. F. Because the impugned clause is beyond the scope of rule makinpower entrusted by the Advocates Act 1961. G. Because the impugned Clause infringes the Public Policy as well as Educational Policy, as these envisage education and equal opportunity at all age levels and at the pace suited to them, the same cannot be restricted by a rule making body to the detriment of
and without the backup/ express provision provided by the Statutory laws. The role of Bar Council of India is to ensure minimum infrastructural requirement which includes building infrastructure like number of class rooms, availability of teachers, library facilities etc., however the strength of admissible students must be exclusive domain of concerned institution. H. Because reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to 1440, the Respondents are infringing fundamental rights of students aspiring to attain admission in the Respondent No.4 to study LL.B. It is submitted action of reducing admissible students violates Right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India. The said action also defeats basic principles of the Constitution of India. I. Because reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to 1440 defeats the objective of establishing the Respondent No.3 and 4. J. Because reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to 1440 is arbitrary and discriminatory and amounts to wastage of public money. It is stated that the Respondent No.3 and 4 are public funded educational institutions receiving grants from University Grants Commission and by reducing number of admissions the public money is not put on optimum use.the objective of establishing public funded educational institutions is to provide an opportunity for higher education to a large number of students. It is worthwhile to note here that spread of Legal Education is need of the hour and is a pious duty of the State. K. Because by reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to 1440 in the Respondent No. 4, a large number of student shall suffer and it will infringe their legal and Fundamental right to have higher education of their choice. L. Because the funds provided to the Respondent No. 3 and 4 from the
money collected from Tax payer, thus it is necessary that it is put to optimum use. The same infrastructure of Respondent No. 4 had been catering 2310 students for more than four decades, then by reducing number of admissions the infrastructure shall be wasted. M. Because there are only a few institutions which offer 3 year LL.B. Course and among them the Respondent No. 4 is the best and more particularly this is only institute in Delhi providing 3 year LL.B. Course after graduation. The Respondent No. 2 has prohibited lateral entry in 5 year LL.B. course for students seeking admission in Law Course after their graduation, thus by reducing number of permissible admissions in the Respondent No. 4, the respondents are infringing students fundamental right. N. Because by reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to 1440 in the Respondent No. 4 will cause not only economic effect on the citizen but also has prevent them from attaining higher education. 19. That the Petitioner seeks liberty from your Lordships to add and /or delete and/or amend any of the grounds during the submissions before this Hon ble Court. 20. That the Petitioner has not filed any other Petition before this Hon ble Court and/or Hon ble Supreme Court of India seeking same or similar relief. 21. That this Hon ble Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition as the impugned infringement has taken place within the jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court. PRAYER In the light of the facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to:
(i) (ii) (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/direction/order thereby Striking down Clause 5 A of Schedule- III of Rules of Legal Education 2008 as enacted by Bar Council of India being arbitrary, capricious and violative of fundamental rights. Directing Respondents to admit 2310 students in the Respondent No.4 and not to reduce number of admissible students. Any other relief which this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondents. It is prayed accordingly. THROUGH New Delhi Date PETITIONER IN PERSON JOGINDER SUKHIJA R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA..PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS INDEX Sn. Particulars Page No. 1. Notice of Motion 2. Urgent Application 3. Memo of Parties 4. List of Dates and Events. 5. Public Interest Litigation Under Article 226 of Constitution of India 1950 alongwith affidavit. 6. Annexure P-1(Colly): Copy of representation mailed on 01.09.2016. 7. Annexure P-2: Copy of news 8. Application Under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the petitioner seeking ad-interim ex-parte stay order alongwith Affidavit. 9. Application under section 151 CPC for exemption from filing legible/typed copy of certain annexures alongwith affidavit. 10. Vakalatnama PETITIONER IN PERSON JOGINDER SUKHIJA R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 Delhi Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA..PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS IN THE MATTER OF : MEMO OF PARTIES JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. Bar Council of India, Through its Chairman, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi 110 002 E-mail ID: info@barcouncilofindia.org email: manankumarmishra@gmail.com 5. University of Delhi
Through The Vice Chancellor Maurice Nagar,Delhi E-mail ID: vc@du.ac.in 6. Faculty of Law, Through its Dean, University of Delhi, Maurice Nagar,Delhi E-mail ID: lawfaculty@gmail.com RESPONDENTS THROUGH PETITIONER IN PERSON JOGINDER SUKHIJA R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 Delhi Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA..PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS NOTICE OF MOTION Sir, The enclosed petition in the aforesaid matter as being filed on behalf of the Petitioner and is likely to be listed on or any date, thereafter. Please take notice accordingly. THROUGH PETITIONER IN PERSON JOGINDER SUKHIJA R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 Delhi Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA..PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS URGENT APPLICATION Kindly treat this accompanying petition as an urgent one in accordance with the High Court Rules and orders as the Petitioner is seeking amendment of the impugned policy. THROUGH PETITIONER IN PERSON JOGINDER SUKHIJA R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 Delhi Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA..PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING AD-INTERIM DIRECTION. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The contents of the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and may be read with part and parcel of this application. 2. That the need of the hour is granting education to maximum students using the public money to enhance education amongst youth of the country. 3. That there exists prima-facie case in favour of the Petitioner as the same is in interest of public at large. 4. That the Public at large shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the interim order as prayed is not granted in its favour. PRAYER: It is, therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to
(A) Pass an ad-interim ex-parte order thereby directing Respondents to admit 2310 students in the Respondent No.4 and not to reduce number of admissible students; Or (B) Any other order as this Hon ble court deems fit It is prayed accordingly. THROUGH PETITIONER IN PERSON JOGINDER SUKHIJA R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 Delhi Dated: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS..PETITIONER RESPONDENTS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE LEGIBLE/TYPED/CERTIFIED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS, ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: - 1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The contents of the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and may be read with part and parcel of this application. 2. That the petitioner also despite best effort has not been able to get legible copies of the some documents. 3. That in view of the same present application is being moved praying that the Hon ble Court may exempt the petitioner from filing the legible copies of certain documents. 4. That the present application is bonafide and may be allowed in the interest of justice. PRAYER: In the facts and circumstances submitted herein above, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court in the interest of justice may be pleased to: A. Petitioner may be exempted from filing the legible/typed/certified copies of certain documents.
B. Pass such other or further orders, as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the petitioner. It is prayed accordingly. THROUGH PETITIONER IN PERSON JOGINDER SUKHIJA R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 Delhi Dated: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA..PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS Affidavit I, Joginder Sukhija, s/o. Prabhu Dayal, age about years, R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110063, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above state matter and being well conversant with the facts of the case is as such competent to depose and swear the present affidavit. 2. That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying Application and the contents of the same are correct to my knowledge and as per records, the same has been drafted by my counsel under my instruction. Deponent Verification: I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been kept concealed therefrom. Verified at New Delhi on this day of May 2017. Deponent IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA..PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS Affidavit I, Joginder Sukhija, s/o. Prabhu Dayal, age about years, R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110063, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. That I am the Petitioner in the above state matter and being well conversant with the facts of the case is as such competent to depose and swear the present affidavit. 2. That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying Application and the contents of the same are correct to my
knowledge and as per records, the same has been drafted by my counsel under my instruction. Deponent Verification: I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been kept concealed therefrom. Verified at New Delhi on this day of May 2017. Deponent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA..PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS Affidavit I, Joginder Sukhija, s/o. Prabhu Dayal, age about years, R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110063, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. That I am the Petitioner in the above state matter and being well conversant with the facts of the case is as such competent to depose and swear the present affidavit. 2. That I have filed the present petition as Public Interest Litigation. 3. That I have gone through the High Court (public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and do hereby affirm that the present Public Interest Litigation is in conformity thereof. 4. That the petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and neither myself nor anybody who the petitioner is interested would in any manner benefit from the relief sought in the present petition save as the member of general public. The petition is not guided by self gain or gain of any person, institution, body or there is no motive other than of public interest in filing the present petition. 5. That I have done whatsoever enquiry/investigation which was in my power to do to collect all data/material which was relevant for this court to entertain the present petition. I further confirm that I have not concealed in the present petition any data/material/information which may have enabled this court to
form an opinion whether to entertain this petition or not and/or whether to grant any relief or not. 6. That the documents filed along with the petition are true copies of their originals. Deponent Verification: I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been kept concealed therefrom. Verified at New Delhi on this day of May 2017. Deponent LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
1924 The Respondent no.4, Faculty of Law has been a leader in the field of legal education in India and continues to be so till date. 1970 Law Centre-I was established with the demand for increase in the number of students to be admitted in the Law Faculty 1971 Law Centre-II 1975 Campus Law centre was established 17.05.2017 The Petitioner filed representations with the Respondents through E-mails, however has not received any response from Respondents. The representation was mailed on 17.05.2017