GOVT.

LAW COLLEGE, MADURAI – MOOT COURT 2023

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION _____/2023

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF
MAHAPRADESH LAW COLLEGES MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
PETITIONER

Vs.

THE BAR COUNCIL OF MAHISHMAH

RESPONDANT 1

THE STATE OF MAHAPRADESH

RESPONDANT 2

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

SUBMITTED BY,
R. GAJENDRAN,
REG.NO. 320B0428,
3 YEAR LLB., “A” Section
Government Law College, Madurai.
1
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO CONTENT PAGE NO

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

2. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

5. SUMMARY OF FACTS 6

6. ISSUES RAISED 8

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10

9. PRAYER 19

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

2
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 LIST OF EXPLANATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
SC SUPREME COURT

HC HIGH COURT

DLU DELHI LAW UNVIRESITY

BCM THE BAR COUNCIL OF MAHISHMATI

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

CET COMMON ELIGIBLITY TEST

SSC SECONDARY SCHOOL CERTIFICATE

LL. B. LEGUM BACCALAUREUS

BCI THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

NET NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST

GO GOVERNMENT ORDER

MH THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

Art, ARTICLE

u/a UNDER ARTICLE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

3
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
  Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College,
 Harsh Pratap Singh Sisodia v. Union of India and Others
 Indian Council of Legal Aid and others vs Bar council of India and others
 Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji & Ors
 Thupili Raveendra Babu vs Bar council Of India and others
 Sudheer v. Bar Council of India(1999)
 P. Ramu vs. Secretary to Government
 Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical
Education (2004),
WEB SOURCES

 http://www.indiankanoon.com
 https://lawtimesjournal.in
 https://casemine.org
 https://www.legal services india.com
 https://main.sci.gov.in
 https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org
 https://www.scobserver.in

LEGISLATIONS AND STATUES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Advocates Act, 1961

3. Rules Of Legal Education, 2009

4. The Universities Grants Act, 1956

5. The Maharashtra Public Universities Act , 2016

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 The Honourable Supreme court has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 30 of

the Constitution of India which reads as follows:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part (1). The right to move

the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of rights conferred by this

part is guaranteed (2). The Supreme court shall have the power to issue directions or order or

writs, including writs in the nature of habeas campus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto

and certicrari, whichever may be appropriated for the enforcement of any of the rights

conferred by this Part.

Herein Submitting this writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for

violation of Fundamental rights 19Article 14 of constitution of India) enumerated in Part III

of Constitution.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

5
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
1. Mahapradesh is one of the states of the Union of Mahishmati, governed by The
Constitution of India.

2. The State Government decided to conduct CET for admission in to Law courses from the
academic year 2016-17 onwards through Government Resolution No. 111dated 01-01-
2016 and informed all law colleges/Universities, which are offering law courses stating
that the admission process for I st year of 3 and 5 year LL.B Courses will be done through
the CET known as ‘Mahapradesh Common Entrance Test-Law’.

3. The State Government also informed that the law colleges/Universities which are having
Government Permission, University Affiliation and the Approval of The Bar Council of
Mahishmati (hereinafter referred as BCM which is similar to BCI ) are only be allotted
candidates.

4. Being aggrieved by these conditions, The Mahapradesh Law Colleges Managements

Association filed a Writ Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against BCM and the
State of Mahapradesh and sought the relief of allotment of candidates to all Law Colleges
which were duly permitted by the Government and Universities and further prayed to
direct the BCM, and the State Government to refund the inspection fee collected by the
BCM with interest and to declare that ‘no approval is needed’ from the BCM.The
petitioner association contended that its Law Colleges cannot be compelled to get
approval of BCM as there is no such statutory compulsion either under Mahishmati
University Grants Commission Act, The Advocates Act, 1961 or Mahapradesh
Universities Act, 1994 subsequently replaced with Mahapradesh Public Universities Act,
2016.

5. Further the BCM is not entitled to fix and collect the inspection fee without consulting the
stakeholders. The petitioner’s association expressed its serious concerns about the
competency, integrity and honesty of Inspection Teams of BCM. Further it has contended
that the statutory duties/functions of the BCM are to regulate the legal profession only

STATEMENT BY RESPONDANT -1

6
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 The respondent BCM has stated that it has derived the authority from The Advocates

Act, 1961 and the Rules framed there under from time to time to regulate and maintain the

standards of legal education. The respondent BCM further submitted that the students who

are admitted and passed out from such colleges without approval from BCM will not be

eligible or permitted to enrol as Advocates. It further stated that the petitioner and the State

Government will have to face severe consequences for such unlawful admissions.

STATEMENT BY RESPONDANT-2

The second respondent State Government categorically submitted its say stating that

the respondent no.1 has no role to play except to confine to its functions as per Sec.7 (1) (h)

(i) of The Advocates Act,1961. Further it has stated that during the pendency of the present

Writ it has withdrawn the circular compelling the Law Colleges to obtain approval from the

BCM.

ISSUES RAISED

7
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 ISSUE -1

Whether the Rules of Legal Education, 2009 framed by the BCM be declared null and

void to the extent that they are in contradiction with the provisions of The Advocates Act, 1961.

ISSUE-2
Whether the BCM’s denial of enrolment of any candidate as an Advocate, who passed out

from any Law College without its approval of affiliation is constitutionally valid?

ISSUE-3
Whether the BCM and Government of Mahapradesh are liable to refund the inspection

fee collected with interest?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
8
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
ISSUE-1

Whether the Rules of Legal Education, 2009 framed by the BCM be declared null and
void to the extent that they are in contradiction with the provisions of The Advocates
Act, 1961.

Yes, The Rules of legal Education, 2007 formed by the BCM be is null and void with
the Provisions of The Advocates Act,1961. Under Section 7(1)(h) in THE ADVOCATES
ACT,1961, to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in
consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar
Councils.
ISSUE-2
Whether the BCM’s denial of enrolment of any candidate as an Advocate, who passed
out from any Law College without its approval of affiliation is constitutionally valid?
No, The BCM’S donial of enrolment of any candidate as an Advocate,who passed out
from any law college, without its approval of affiliation is not Constitutionally valid. The
denial of enrolment of students who had completed law degree in non-approval obtained
college will effect the future carrier of students. And in the opinion of student who had
followed the rules and regulations framed by UGC and The Advocates Act shall be allowed
to enter in Enrolment.

ISSUE-3

Whether the BCM and Government of Mahapradesh are liable to refund the inspection fee
collected with interest?

Yes, The BCM and Government of Mahapradesh are liable to refund the inspection
fee collected with interest. It is because the colleges are not liable to forced to pay inspection
under Advocates Act,1961 for collecting any kind of fees from the University or law
colleges.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE -1
9
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 Whether the Rules of Legal Education, 2009 framed by the BCM be declared null and

void to the extent that they are in contradiction with the provisions of The Advocates

Act, 1961?

1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that the Rules of Legal Education,
2009 framed by the BCM are in contradiction with the provisions of The Advocates Act,
1961 under Section 7(1)(h) Functions of Bar Council of India is to promote legal education
and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India
imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. It is noted that BCI function is only to
promote legal education, but BCI did not have the power to frame rules on legal education
that were in violation of the Advocates Act, 1961.
2. It is humbly submitted that the Rules of legal Education -2008 that The Advocate Act,1916
(the Act of 1961) did not confer any power whatever to the Bar Council of India to frame
rules that would have retrospective effect. The rules as framed could be given retrospective
effect only. By including permanent approval that was ganted earlier by the BCM to the law
college in the term “regular approval”, such grant could not be taken away. The states of the
centres of Legal Education established before the Rules of 2009 came into force and
permanently approved and could not to be allowed.
3. It is humbly submitted that in the case Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023
that the court explained that the object of parliament enacting the Advocates act was to
consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners.The prominent role of the Bar Council of
India,the apex body,is apparent from the functions prescribed for the Bar council of India
under section 7 of the said act.While the provisions do not entrust the bar council of india
with direct control of legal education,as primarily legal education is within the province of
the universities.
4. In the case Harsh Pratap Singh Sisodia v. Union of India and Others is a 2017,that court
observed to remove any arbitrary or discriminatory requirements to practice and the court
noted that the Bar Council of India, which regulates legal education in India, recognized LLB
degrees awarded by foreign universities and that there was no rational basis for excluding
candidates who had obtained their LLB degrees from foreign universities.

10
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
5. It is humbly submitted that the deciding to conduct the entrance exam for law admission it’s
an upfront discrimination imposed to students to prepare for a new exam without granting
proper time to do so. And it is made that the students not be compelled to appear on the
Common Entrance Test for law courses of prescribing a syllabus to study in short period.
6. It is humbly noted that in the case Indian Council of Legal Aid and others vs Bar council of
India and others Functions and Powers of BCI enshrined under sections 7&15 respectively of
‘the act’, does not empowers or authorize them to make any provision which would debar
people from entering the profession. BCI acting arbitrarily added the new rule as the
language in section49(1)(ag) clearly legitimizes them to create a class or category of persons
entitled to be ‘enrolled’ and not ‘rejected’. Even sub-clause (ah) talks of advocates and does
not aims at anyone who has not entered the profession.The judgment was in accordance with
the Article14 of the constitution which confers the citizens Right To Equality, however it was
silent on whether the rule has violated one’s Right To Profession {article19(1)(g)}or not. The
Apex Court made it quite clear that no one is allowed to formulate rules on matters which are
not under their control. The impugned rule was apparently arbitrary, as there is no provision
in any of the act concerned that could be used as a reference.The Section 49(1)(ag) of the act
is quite equivocal, as there is no clarification regarding what could be the basis for creating a
class or category of persons for enrolment in any of the provisions.The rule was said to be
violative of Article14 Right to equality, Article19(1)(g) Right to practice any occupation,
Article21 Right to life and personal liberty of the Constitution of India.
7. It is humbly submitted that in the case Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji & Ors, the
Supreme Court had held that the BCI could not make rules that were in contradiction with the
Advocates Act, 1961. The court had held that the BCI could only make rules that were
consistent with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, and that any rule that contravened
the Act would be null and void.
8. It is humbly noted that in the case that Rule making power of BCI cannot go beyond its limit
in legal education it violates the fundamental rights of citizen. It is also noted in the case
Thupili Raveendra Babu vs Bar council Of India and others. (2021) that according to the
appellant , the BCI is an elected body of advocates in India. It regulates legal practice as well
as legal education in India. It enjoys the dominant position in controlling the legal education
as well as the legal practice in India. Rules of Legal Education, 2008, a part of Bar Council of
India Rules enacted under the Advocates Act, 1961The impugned Clause 28 has been

11
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 incorporated by the BCI in contravention of Section 4 of the Act by ‘misusing its dominant
position’. By having done so, the BCI has also allegedly indulged in colourable exercise of
power.
9. It is humbly submitted that in the case Sudheer v. Bar Council of India(1999), The learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no power with the Bar Council of India to
frame the impugned rules. It was also submitted that Section 7 of the Act lays down the
statutory functions of the Bar Council of India. The provisions thereof do not entitle the Bar
Council of India to frame such impugned rules prescribing a pre-condition before enrolment
of an applicant as an `advocate' under the Act by requiring him to undergo pre-enrolment
training and apprenticeship as laid down. under the impugned rules. It was also submitted that
Section 24 sub-section (3) (d) of the Act also was not available to the Bar Council of India to
frame such Rules. It was submitted that rule making power of the Bar Council of India as laid
down by Section 49 could not be pressed in service by it in support of the impugned rules. 1 In
addition, the impugned rules were contended to be obnoxious, arbitrary, unreasonable and
unworkable, so much so that they violate the fundamental right to equality under article 14 of
the Constitution of India. It was also added that the retrospective nature of the impugned rules
was untenable. Therefore, the petitioners contended that the impugned rules are ultra vires
the powers of the Bar Council of India and that they are unconstitutional and should be struck
down.
10. It is humbly stated before the Hon’ble Supreme court that the provisions of the The
Advocates Act, 1961 are in contradictions to the Rules of Legal education 2009. These rules
regarding recogonition of law colleges, approval of it are arbitrary and discriminatory in
nature and these rules of legal educations are also violating the fundamental rights of the
Indian constitutions.Thus these rules of legal education 2009 framed by BCM to be declare as
null and void.

ISSUE -2

12
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 Whether the BCM’s denial of enrolment of any candidate as an Advocate, who passed
out from any Law College without its approval of affiliation is constitutionally valid?
1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme court that the fundamental rights of
educational institution and students are violated by the BCM’s denial of enrolment of any
candidate as an Advocate, who passed out from any Law college without its approval of
affiliation is not constitutionally valid
2. It is humbly submitted that the denial of enrollment to students who have studied in
unapproved law colleges may be seen as a violation of their right to equality.Under Article 14
of Indian Constitution, The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. It may be
argued that students who have obtained law degrees from unapproved colleges are being
discriminated against as they are being denied enrollment solely on the basis of their college's
approval status.
3. It is humbly noted that the BCI's denial of enrollment may also be seen as a violation of the
fundamental right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation,trade or business
under Art 19(1)(g) of Indian Constitution. Denying enrollment to students who have obtained
law degrees from unapproved colleges may be seen as a violation of their right to pursue their
chosen profession and their right to access legal education.
4. It could be noted that the BCI has the power to maintain standards of legal education and take
action against law colleges that do not meet these standards. However, the denial of
enrollment to students who have studied in unapproved law colleges should be based on
objective criteria and should not be arbitrary or discriminatory in nature
5. It is notes that in the case P. Ramu vs. Secretary to Government, Home Department and
Others (2011),that the petitioner had obtained a law degree from a college that was not
affiliated with any university or approved by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The petitioner
applied for enrollment as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
but his application was rejected by the BCI on the grounds that his degree was obtained from
an unapproved college. The petitioner challenged the BCI's decision in the High Court of
Madras. The High Court of Madras held that the BCI's decision was arbitrary and violative of
the petitioner's fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. The court observed that the
BCI's role was to regulate legal education and maintain standards, but it had no power to
deny enrollment to a person who had obtained a law degree from an unapproved college. The

13
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 court further noted that the petitioner had passed the qualifying exam conducted by the BCI
and had fulfilled other eligibility criteria, and hence his enrollment should not be denied on
the ground of the unapproved college. This case underscores the importance of recognition
and approval of educational institutions and courses by regulatory bodies like the BCI and the
UGC, and also highlights the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the fundamental rights of
citizens are protected.
6. It is humbly noted that in the case Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All
India Council for Technical Education (2004), which held that The Supreme Court held that
the AICTE's order was arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the colleges . The
Court observed that the AICTE had not provided any rationale or justification for its order
and had failed to take into account the existing accreditation and quality control mechanisms
in place . The Court further noted that the AICTE's order had the effect of imposing
unnecessary and burdensome regulations on the colleges, which would ultimately lead to an
increase in the cost of education for students thus that the regulatory authorities like the BCI
should not take arbitrary decisions that adversely affect the rights of citizens.
7. It is humbly noted that the need for transparency, accountability, and fairness in the decision-
making process of regulatory authorities like the BCI, and the importance of upholding the
fundamental rights of citizen and has helped to establish the principle that such authorities
should act in a manner that is reasonable and in the best interests of citizens and students.
8. It is stated that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act and the Advocates Act, 1961
are two separate pieces of legislation that deal with different aspects of higher education and
legal practice in India, respectively. However, both acts have provisions related to the
approval of law colleges in India. Under the UGC Act, law colleges in India must obtain
recognition from a university before they can start offering law courses. The UGC Act lays
down the general provisions for the approval and regulation of colleges in India, including
law colleges.Under Section 2(f) “University” means a University established or incorporated
by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as
may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recoginsed by the Commission in
accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act.Section 3 states that The
Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare by notification in the
Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be
deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made,

14
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within
the meaning of clause (f) of section 2.Under section 12B provides for the maintenance of a
list of universities by the UGC, and lays down the criteria for the inclusion of universities in
the list.Section 22 lays down the requirements for colleges to obtain recognition from a
university, including the requirement to fulfill certain minimum standards in terms of
infrastructure, faculty, and other facilities.Section 23 empowers the UGC to specify the
minimum standards for colleges seeking recognition from a university. Overall, while the
UGC Act does not specifically mention law colleges, the sections above lay down the general
provisions for the approval and regulation of colleges in India. Law colleges in India must
fulfill the requirements specified by the UGC and obtain recognition from a university before
they can start offering law courses.
9. It is also noted that under section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates act , BCI have power to promote
legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the
Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils and under Section
7(i) to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an
advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities. However, the Advocates Act
does not provide the BCI with the power to approve or disapprove law colleges. The BCI's
power is limited to laying down standards of legal education and to recognize degrees in law
obtained from universities recognized by it.
10. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that the BCI has a role in
the recognition of law degrees obtained from universities recognized by it, the power to
approve or disapprove law colleges rests solely with the University Grants Commission
(UGC) under the UGC Act, 1956. And also noted that denial of enrolment of any candidate
as an Advocate, who passed out from any Law College without its approval of affiliation is
constitutionally invalid and it violating the fundamental rights which are guaranteed under
Indian constitution.

15
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 ISSUE- 3

Whether the BCM and Government of Mahapradesh are liable to refund the inspection
fee collected with interest?
1. It is most humbly and respectively submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, The
BCM and Government of Mahapradesh are liable to refund the inspection fee collected with
interest. It is because the colleges are not liable to forced to pay inspection under Section 7(1)
(i) Advocates Act,1961 for collecting any kind of fees from the University or law colleges
and also the state government has withdrawn the circular compelling the Law Colleges to
obtain approval from the BCI.Thus they are liable to refund the inspection fee with interest.
2. It is humbly notes that Under the provisions of The Advocates Act, 1 961 under Section 7(1)

(i) Functions of Bar Council of India is to to recognise Universities whose

degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an

advocate and for that purpose
to visit and inspect Universities. Under section 49(1)(d) General power of the
Bar Council of India to makerules states tha the standards of legal education to be observed
by
universities in India and the inspection of universities for that purpose.If its so , then it is their
duty to inspects the colleges and universities thus there is no need to pay inspection fees by
the colleges.
3. It is humbly submitted that under the Maharashtra Public Universities act 2016, act contains
provisions for inspections of colleges and universities, including those offering courses in law
. Section 32(1) The Academic Council shall be the principal academic authority of the
university and shall be responsible for regulating and maintaining the standards of
teaching, research and evaluation in the university. It shall also be responsible for
laying down the academic policies in regard to maintenance and improvement of
standards of teaching, research, extension, collaboration programmes in academic
matters and evaluation of workload of the teachers.Also under Section 33(1)(m) The
Academic Council shall have the following powers and duties, namely, to prescribe norms
for granting affiliation, continuation of affiliation, extension of affiliation to colleges, and
recognition, continuation of recognition, extension of recognition to institutions of higher
learning and research or specialized studies. Section 33(1)(n) states that To grant affiliation to

16
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 colleges or institutions in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Statutes, Ordinances
and Regulations.
4. Under section 8(6) of the Maharashtra Public Universities act 2016 the State Government
through any officer not below the rank of Joint Director, Higher Education or Technical
Education shall have right to cause inspection of any affiliated, conducted, or autonomous
college recognized institution or university department.Under section 117 inspection of
colleges and recognized institutions and report. Thus after getting all approval and
inspections under the Maharashtra Public Universities act 2016, the BCI is not entitled to fix
and collect the inspection fee.
5. Law Commission of India 184th Report on The Legal Education & Professional Training and
Proposals for Amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961 and the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 was published in 2002. The report highlighted the need for a
regulatory mechanism for legal education in India, as there was a lack of uniform standards
of legal education across the country. The report recommended the establishment of a
separate regulatory body for legal education, independent of the Bar Council of India and the
University Grants Commission, to regulate the standards of legal education in the country.
The report recommended the establishment of a National Legal Education Commission
(NLEC), which would be responsible for setting and enforcing the standards of legal
education in the country. The NLEC would be responsible for approving law colleges and
universities, setting curricula, and conducting inspections to ensure compliance with the
prescribed standards. The report also recommended amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961
and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 to provide for the establishment of the
NLEC and to give it the necessary powers to regulate legal education in the country. Overall,
the report aimed to improve the quality of legal education in India and ensure that the
inspection fee collected by the BCI should be reviewed to ensure transparency and
accountability.
6. The activities of BCI are arbitrary in nature by to charge excessive inspection fees and
changing the fees structure from time to time for law colleges and universities, it could
potentially violate several fundamental rights of educational institutions and their
stakeholders. Article 14 get violated that BCI charges different inspection fees for different
institutions, without any reasonable basis, it could be seen as a violation of the right to
equality. This is because it would result in unequal treatment of institutions. Right to

17
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 Freedom of Trade and Profession Article 19(1)(g) get violated by Excessive inspection fees
charged by the BCI could result in an unreasonable restriction on the right to freedom of trade
and profession of educational institutions. This is because it could make it difficult for
institutions to sustain themselves financially. Thus by the BCI could potentially violate
several fundamental rights of educational institutions and rights of students.
7. It is humbly submitted that before the hon’ble supreme court that on behalf of petitioner side
conern that BCM inspection should not expressed its competency, integrity and honesty of
Inspection Teams of BCM. Further it has contended that the statutory duties under section
7(1)(h ) & (i) that the functions of the BCM are to regulate the legal profession only. Thus it
is paryed before the court that the BCM and government of Maharashtra are liable to refund
the inspection fee collected with interest

18
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. To declare that the the Rules of Legal Education, 2009 framed by the BCM as null
and void and to be declare that they are in contradiction with the provisions of The
Advocates Act, 1961
2. To declare that the BCM’s denial of enrolment of any candidate as an Advocate, who
passed out from any Law College without its approval of affiliation is constitutionally
invalid.
3. To declare that the BCM and Government of Mahapradesh are liable to refund the
inspection fee collected with interest.

And/Or,

To grant any other order in favour of the petitioner which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit
in the eyes of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness petitioner shall be
duty bound as ever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

19
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-
 20
-Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner-