In a significant ruling emphasizing adherence to institutional guidelines, the Telangana High Court resolved Writ Petition (PIL) No. 11 of 2024, filed by A. Bhaskar Reddy, concerning the regulation of law admissions in the state. The division bench, comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice K. Sarath, directed all concerned parties to ensure that the admission process for law courses complies with the University Grants Commission (UGC) and Bar Council of India (BCI) norms moving forward.
Background
The petitioner, A. Bhaskar Reddy, appeared in person, advocating for stricter adherence to the UGC and BCI guidelines for conducting law admissions. The petition arose out of concerns regarding procedural lapses and delays in the admission process for law courses, potentially affecting students and institutions alike.
Legal Issues
1. Compliance with UGC and BCI Guidelines: The petitioner sought judicial intervention to ensure that law admissions were conducted strictly as per the calendar and guidelines established by the UGC and the BCI.
2. Impact of Non-Compliance: The case highlighted how deviations from established norms could lead to administrative chaos and compromise the academic integrity of institutions.
Court’s Observations and Directions
During the proceedings, a consensus emerged among the parties that the admission process for the current academic year was complete. However, the petitioner’s principal concern remained unaddressed – the need for adherence to guidelines in future admissions.
Justice Sujoy Paul, delivering the order, emphasized:
“The whole anxiety of the petitioner is to ensure that the entire admission process takes place and completes as per the calendar prescribed by the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.)/Bar Council of India (B.C.I.).”
In light of this, the court directed the respondents to:
– Undertake and complete the admission process in future academic years in strict compliance with UGC and BCI regulations.
– Make “sincere endeavours” to ensure such adherence to prevent procedural irregularities.
The court disposed of the petition with these directions, providing clarity on the importance of institutional discipline in admissions. Additionally, all pending interlocutory applications were closed without costs.
Counsel for the respondents:
– Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, Additional Advocate General for Respondent No. 2 (State of Telangana).
– Sri Aadesh Varma, Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of India.
– Smt. C. Vani Reddy, Standing Counsel for Higher Education, representing Respondent No. 3.
