The Legal Education - Law Commission of India

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20State legislature, as the case may be, is primarily entitled to legislate. Thisexercise is performed by examining the pith and substance of thelegislation which is made with reference to those legislative entries.Certain well-settled principles of interpretation apply.2.8 Firstly, each entry in each list has to be given its widest scope,without any limitation. Incidental encroachment into the field oflegislation of another legislature is permissible to a limited extent, i.e. if itis not in direct conflict with the latter’s express provisions. For example,where a federal legislature legislates on one of the subjects within its field,it may incidentally encroach into the field of a State legislation and viceversa,so long as it does not directly conflict with express provisions of theother statute. As long as the pith and substance of the legislation isattributable to a subject within the field of that legislature, as allocated bythe Constitution, such a limited incidental encroachment into the field ofanother legislature, is permissible and is not liable to be struck down asultra-vires.2.9 However, conflict, in the present context, does not arise betweenlegislations made under Entries pertaining to the Federal legislature and theState legislature. Here the issue arises between two legislations made bythe same legislature, i.e. UGC Act and Advocates Act, both made byParliament. In the case of the UGC Act, 1956 and Advocates Act, 1961,we are concerned with two legislations in List I itself though they are madeunder different entries.
212.10 If the UGC Act, 1956 is expressly meant to deal with standards ofeducation, can the Advocates Act, 1961, which is meant to deal with the‘right to practice’ be deemed as a law which is in pith and substance, onealso relating to ‘standards of education’? The point here is that, as statedabove, both laws are made under different entries in List I. In that event,what is the principle of interpretation that is applicable?2.11 It was stated in India Cement vs. State of TN, 1990(1) SCC 12, thatthe constitutional principle mentioned in the preceding paragraph asbetween laws made by a Federal legislature and a State legislature isequally applicable in the case of legislation made under different entries inthe same List by the same legislature. In the above case, SabyasachiMukherji, J (as he then was) observed (see p 23, para 18):“In interpreting an entry, it would not be reasonable to import anylimitation by comparing or contrasting that entry with any other onein the same list.”2.12 The same principle as in India Cement was reiterated by SabyasachiMukherji, J (as he then was) in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. vs. State ofUP 1990(1) SCC 109 at 151 (para 67).2.13 In other words, provisions of the UGC Act under Entry 66 of List Idealing with standards of education and the provisions of the AdvocatesAct must be given as wide a scope as possible. The UGC Act was passedunder Entry 66, List I and deals with standards of education while theAdvocates Act owes its existence to Entries 77, 78 of List I. That Entry no
Page 1 and 2: Law Commission of India184 th Repor
Page 3 and 4: 3colleges for prescribing standards
Page 5 and 6: 5CONTENTSPAGESCh. I Introductory 1-
Page 7 and 8: 7suggestions, while some others opp
Page 9 and 10: 9in as much as it did not formulate
Page 11 and 12: 11Conference of Heads of Legal Educ
Page 13 and 14: 13subjects are: the respective role
Page 15 and 16: 15recommendations. The Commission w
Page 17 and 18: 17considering the provisions of ano
Page 19: 19The Advocates Act, 1961 thus deal
Page 23 and 24: 23subject of legal education comes
Page 25 and 26: 25“In the field of legal educatio
Page 27 and 28: 27between the Bar Council of India
Page 29 and 30: 29Court Judge are now in the Commit
Page 31 and 32: 31decision cannot be taken without
Page 33 and 34: 33In case, during the tenure of the
Page 35 and 36: 35(4) All questions which come up b
Page 37 and 38: 37Education Committee and who are i
Page 39 and 40: 39the absence of a consensus, the m
Page 41 and 42: 414.7 It must be noted that standar
Page 43 and 44: 434.10 As to the co-ordination betw
Page 45 and 46: 45In the Karnataka High Court Judgm
Page 47 and 48: 47the proposals for the consultatio
Page 49 and 50: 49(a) two law teachers in office fr
Page 51 and 52: 51aspects and we propose to lay emp
Page 53 and 54: 535.6 Rule 9(1) lists 6 subjects fo
Page 55 and 56: 55skill to identify the administrat
Page 57 and 58: 57(6) preparing for negotiation, co
Page 59 and 60: 59technologies which require corres
Page 61 and 62: 61education and laying standards in
Page 63 and 64: 63years, the number of civil matter
Page 65 and 66: 65formulated may be adopted by the
Page 67 and 68: 67Procedure, even though they have
Page 69 and 70: 69Chapter VIIAdjunct Teachers from
Page 71 and 72:
71“And there is no need to fit sq
Page 73 and 74:
73“The adjunct teachers teach the
Page 75 and 76:
75High Court or Supreme Court or be
Page 77 and 78:
77students who will go to the Bar o
Page 79 and 80:
79Inspections:8.4 As per section 7(
Page 81 and 82:
81India, when it wields powers, is
Page 83 and 84:
83one where the college is proposed
Page 85 and 86:
85(The existing section 7A should b
Page 87 and 88:
877C. (1) Where there is a differen
Page 89 and 90:
89(vii) The following clause be add
Page 91 and 92:
919.3 Whatever be the percentage of
Page 93 and 94:
939.10 Prof. Myron Moskovitz of the
Page 95 and 96:
95malpractices. We are only referri
Page 97 and 98:
97get acquainted with several pract
Page 99 and 100:
99Chapter XEducation on Legal Educa
Page 101 and 102:
10110.3 Several of the above Commit
Page 103 and 104:
103colleges located in cities and d
Page 105 and 106:
105Chapter XIDerecognition of Unive
Page 107 and 108:
107Chapter XIITraining and Apprenti
Page 109 and 110:
109The court held that once the rel
Page 111 and 112:
111include problem method, moot cou
Page 114 and 115:
114advocates as well as the requisi
Page 116 and 117:
116senior counsel in these big citi
Page 118 and 119:
11812.17 There is a strong view tha
Page 120 and 121:
120graduates are proposed to be rec
Page 122 and 123:
122Chapter XIIIDisqualification of
Page 124 and 125:
12413.4 Therefore, we are of the em
Page 126 and 127:
1264) Clause (b) of subsection (2)
Page 128 and 129:
128Advocates Act, 1961 for providin
Page 130 and 131:
130prescribe higher standards.(para
Page 132 and 133:
132be amended.Consequently, section
Page 134 and 135:
13430) Section 7(1) (i) to be amend
show all

The Legal Education - Law Commission of India

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?