Common law admission test (CLAT) conducted by different National law universities each year in order to give admissions to the 19 national law universities spread across the country has been in focus in both judicial and public discourse in recent years. The gross mis-administration in the conduct of the exam as well as the publication of the results has resulted in Prof. Shamnad Basheer’s PIL filed in the Honourable supreme court of India in 2015 which demanded institutionalization of CLAT by establishing a permanent body for conducting the examination.
The recent mis-administration in the conduct of exam in 2018 along with the Joint statement issued by the student bodies of NLSIU, NUJS and NALSAR highlighting the failure of conducting the exam in a proper manner and echoing the demand made by the aforementioned PIL has further intensified the debate regarding CLAT. In light of the aforestated PIL, the Bar Council of India (BCI) had filed a reply in the Supreme Court demanding that they are the only competent body in the country to conduct CLAT. This article focuses on debunking the claim made by BCI as well as stating the huge trouble the students would be in if the BCI was allowed to conduct CLAT.
A] BCI is not the sole competent authority to conduct CLAT.
BCI had stated in the reply that it is the sole competent authority to conduct CLAT in accordance with section 7 (h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 which lists in the function of BCI
“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;”
However, promoting legal education and laying down standards for the same does not impart an exclusive authority to govern the legal education in the country. The provision itself has mentioned the provision being limited and subject to consultation with universities. It does not definitely extend to conceptualising and conducting the entrance examination for the law universities and colleges.
Therefore, the legislative intent behind the enactment of the said act is clear: it does not grant a wide discretionary powers to the BCI but on the other hand gives only limited power to BCI to regulate certain aspects of undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes in consultation with universities and conduct the entrance exam for lawyers who wish to obtain the license of Practice i.e. Sanad.
If the court grants the authority to conduct CLAT to BCI, this established rule of statutory interpretation would be grossly violated. In addition to the legal violation, the following section explains why the BCI conducting the exam would be more harmful to the students than the present situation.
B] Misadministration of All India Bar examination(AIBE) :
AIBE conducted by BCI to grant the license of practice to graduated lawyers is subject to stark criticism since its very inception. It has conducted AIBE in an unprofessional manner and has subjected the exam to unreasonable and unexplained delays in the past, a brief record of which has been presented below:
| Sr no. | Year | Date of | Declared Date | Actual date after postponement | Additional mismanagement ( if any) |
| 1 | 2017 | examination | 03 Jan | 26 Feb | tentative Postponed date. |
| 2 | 2017 | registration | 6 Jan | 16th Jan | No reason provided |
| 3 | 2017 | Issuance of admit cards | 16th March | 18th March | No reason provided |
| 4 | 2017 | Declaration of results | 8th June | 15the June( but was actually published on 12th June) | – |
| 5 | 2016 | examination | 13th December 2015 | 6th March 2016 | – |
| 6 | 2015 | Examination | 15th March | 24th may | – |
| 7 | 2014 | Examination | 29th June | 9th September | Rescheduled twice. |
The above-stated table only lists out a few examples of unprofessionalism employed by BCI. However, a lot more instances of such practices could be observed in the conduct of AIBE in the past years.
Since, CLAT is to the date conducted in very few cities. Major portion of CLAT givers have to travel a lot to give CLAT and therefore, it would be gross injustice to students who have to travel a lot to take up the CLAT in their respective allotted examination centres considering the unreasonable delays in the AIBE system.
Moreover, the National law schools have defined a time-sensitive admission process after CLAT which involves conducting CLAT in the second month of May. the results are declared by the end of may and the counselling and admission process is completed in the month of June and the national law universities admit the fresh batch of students in the first week of the month of July. Looking at the delays in the Conduct of AIBE, it is a very clear possibility that similar trend may be followed in Conduct of CLAT.
If that happens, it will result in total breakdown of the academic calendar of all the national law universities in India which will have catastrophic effects in terms of amount of fixed academic syllabus to be covered in the first year of law school.
In light of the abysmal system of AIBE and lack of authority in BCI, it would be gross injustice to the students as well as to the national law universities if the exam is conducted by BCI. Prof. Shamnad Basheer has aptly described handing down CLAT to BCI as “Forcing Thousands of Students to Jump from Frying Pan into Fire.”
