The Legal Education - Law Commission of India

1081964 to the proviso were also omitted. The result was that after 1973, therewas no requirement of the training or the Bar examination.12.3 Yet another amendment related to the rule making power of the StateBar Councils. In sec. 28 (2)(b), the clause permitting the State Bar Councilto make rules regarding the training and Bar examination was also deletedby the same Act 60 of 1973.12.4 In 1994, the Chief Justice of India, Justice M.N. Venkatachaliahconstituted the Ahmadi Committee on Legal Education. The Committeeconsisted of Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Justice B.N. Kirpal and one of us(Justice M. Jagannadha Rao). The Committee wrote to all Chief Justices ofHigh Courts seeking their views. Almost all the Chief Justices felt thathaving regard to deterioration in the standards of students and in skills ofadvocacy, it was incumbent for the Bar Council of India to reintroduce theTraining Programme for graduates. Responses were also received by theCommittee from State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India.12.5 After the Ahmadi Committee Report in 1994, the Bar Council ofIndia reconsidered the earlier decision of 1973 and decided to reintroducethe Training for one year after graduation. It accordingly made Rules soonafter 1994 and the Rules were replaced by fresh Rules made on 19.7.98. Itis these rules that were challenged in the Supreme Court. The SupremeCourt considered the question in V. Sudheer vs. Bar Council of India 1999(3) SCC 176 whether, having regard to the legislative history whichrevealed that the Training was part of the mandate in the Act, the samecould not be reintroduced by way of a Rule by the Bar Council of India.