2006 (11) TMI 708 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Principal of the Law College.
2. Conflict between the University Act and the Advocates Act.
3. Role of the Bar Council of India in legal education.
4. Harmonious construction of conflicting statutes.
5. Qualifications required for the Principal of a Law College.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Appointment of Respondent No. 5 as Principal of the Law College:
The Bar Council of India challenged the High Court's decision that upheld the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Principal of the Dayanand College of Law. The High Court had ruled that the appointment was valid under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, despite respondent No. 5 lacking a qualification in law. The Bar Council of India had withdrawn recognition of the College due to this lack of qualification, leading to the management filing a writ petition questioning the appointment.

2. Conflict Between the University Act and the Advocates Act:
The High Court held that the University Act, being a later State Act with the President's assent, would prevail over the Advocates Act u/s Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The High Court concluded that the Bar Council of India had no control over legal education and that the appointment of respondent No. 5 was consistent with the University Act.

3. Role of the Bar Council of India in Legal Education:
The Supreme Court noted that the Bar Council of India, constituted u/s 4 of the Advocates Act, has functions including promoting legal education and laying down standards for such education (u/s 7(1)(h) and 7(1)(i)). The Bar Council of India also has the power to recognize universities whose degrees qualify for enrolment as advocates and to inspect universities for this purpose.

4. Harmonious Construction of Conflicting Statutes:
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a harmonious construction of the University Act and the Advocates Act. It held that while the University Act governs the selection process, the appointment of a Principal of a Law College must also comply with the Bar Council of India's rules. The Court stated that a doctorate holder in any branch of law should be appointed as Principal to ensure the students' professional future is not jeopardized.

5. Qualifications Required for the Principal of a Law College:
The Court found that the High Court erred by not reconciling the relevant provisions. It held that the Principal of a Law College must meet the qualifications prescribed by the Bar Council of India, which includes holding a doctorate in law. The Court suggested that the authorities reconsider the amendment to Statute 11.14, which had removed the requirement for the Principal to hold a doctorate in a subject taught in the college.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgments, and ruled that respondent No. 5 could not be appointed as Principal of the Law College. The Court directed the authorities to ensure future appointments comply with both the University Act and the Advocates Act. The Writ Petition filed by the management was allowed, and the Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 5 was dismissed.