2006 INSC 0540
                               SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                Bar Council of India

                                                           Vs.

                                              Gopal Krishna Chatrath

                           (K.G. Balakrishnan, Tarun Chatterjee and D.K. Jain JJ.)

                                                      12.07.2006

                                                    JUDGMENT

1. These appeals have been preferred by the Bar Council of India from the judgment of the High
court of Punjab and Haryana.

2. A Resolution No. 68/1999 was passed on 24.10.99 by the Bar Council of India, whereby evening
courses for L.L.B. were stopped. The resolution reads thus:

The amendment rule will read as follows:

2.1) That the Law Education under Section B may be through whole times colleges. All Law
Colleges which are exclusively running evening sessions shall switch over to "Day" sessions during
the academic year 2000-2001 failing which they will not be entitled to approval of affiliation by the
Bar Council of India. Provided that wherever, the college is running evening course, the students
who were admitted to the first year, in the evening sessions during the academic year 1999-2000
shall be allowed to complete the course.

3. The amendment of the rule was challenged by the respondents herein on the ground that Section
7(1)(h) of the Act contemplates a consultation with the Universities in India before any such
amendment is made. The Division Bench has come to the conclusion that there was no effective
consultation with the Universities in India before the amendment was effected and the High Court
held that the amendment of Rule 2(1) of the rules was not sustainable and violative of Section
7(1)(h) as there was no consultation with the Universities of State Bar Councils.

4. We heard counsel on both sides. The counsel for the appellant contended that as part of the
consultation process there was some seminar in which member of the State Bar Council and
representatives from Universities participated and it was after that the amendment was effected. The
counsel also pointed out that there has been suggestions by the Committee constituted for the
purpose of improving legal education, to ban the evening law courses. Even then the appellant
should have made consultation with the Universities before making such amendment. The view
expressed by the Division Bench is correct and we do not find any reasons to interfere with the
finding. The appeals, therefore, filed by the Bar Council fail and it is dismissed. No costs.
5. In view of the order passed above in the civil appeal, transfer cases and the transfer petitions are
also dismissed. If any candidates have passed the L.L.B. examination through evening course, they
would be at liberty to move the Bar Council for enrolment.