The Legal Education - Law Commission of India

31decision cannot be taken without consulting the Bar and the Judiciary. Wedo not propose to go into this further suggestion for the reason givenbelow.3.7 The criticism that the Ahmadi Committee recommended only onemember of the Faculty to be on the Legal Education Committee is, in ourview, justified. But, the other view, that the Bar Council and Judges shouldhave nothing to do with legal education cannot be accepted in as much as,under Entries 77 and 78 of List I, the subject matter of legislation is‘practice in courts’ and the Advocates Act, 1961 is a law made for thatpurpose. As pointed out in Chapter II, though generally, in the matter of‘standards of legal education’ the UGC or the Universities may haveprimacy, in the matter of standards of legal education for those studentswho will practice in Courts, the primacy is of the Bar and the Judiciary.This was the view of the Setalved Committee also in the 14 th Report. Butat the same time, that does not mean that the law teachers have no place inthe fixing of the standards. In our view, there must be discussion by theBar Council of India with the Universities or with, as proposed, a body oflegal faculty, representative of the law teaching community in the entirecountry, to be nominated by the UGC. We are of the view that theproposal made in this Chapter and the next Chapter (viz., Chapter IV), willbalance the roles of the Bar, Judiciary and the law teachers and once thenumber of teachers in the Legal Education Committee is increased, therewill be no room for any grievance.3.8 Here, we may mention that in the next chapter, i.e. Chapter IV, weare recommending the constitution of a Legal Education Committee of the