If I was to come up with a legal parallel for the saying “The worst thing about betrayals is that it never comes from strangers”, it would be, “The worst form of legal nonsense emanates from law schools themselves”. A tale of two institutions, AMU and Lloyd and their blatant disregard against a judgement of the Delhi High Courtis a monument of legal nonsense to say the least. The Delhi High Court, in Re Sushant Rohilla case, while issuing directions to the Bar Council of India had ordered “No student enrolled in any recognized law college, University or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance” (Para 249, 2a). The Court was aware of the ‘institutional reluctance’ to change in the ‘norm’ that plagues institutions in India. So while it laid down multiple requirements regarding attendance norms, and periodic display of attendance records etc, it also reiterated that the University cannot bar the student from taking examinations or withhold promotion to the next semester merely on the grounds of shortage of attendance (Para 249, 2c (vii)). The institutions were allowed to reduce the grade of the student by a maximum of 5%, in case of marks being awarded and by 0.33% in case of the CGPA system being followed.

However, despite a court judgement directing a statutory body (The Bar Council of India) born out of a central legislature (The Advocates Act, 1961), students in the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and now Lloyd Law College, Noida were detained.              

From what it appears, there runs a common justification, that a judgement of the Delhi High Court, directing the Bar Council of India, does not apply to universities in Uttar Pradesh. 

Ignorance is bliss, Incompetence is bliss writ-large

If a judgement like the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India which annulled Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, were to be passed by a High Court at Allahabad, would the same provision still remain legal in Delhi?

In other words, is the judgement of a High Court, declaring a central legislation void, not binding on other High Courts? Prudence demands that law remains consistent throughout India, therefore, what violates the constitution in Allahabad, must also do so in Delhi. Afterall, the law of the land is certain, irrefutable everywhere and almost ‘divinely’ omnipresent.

The law has been echoed by the Madras High Court in Union of India Vs Textile Technical Association [(2014) 4 LLJ 683], wherein, a division bench of the Madras High Court held that “if any of the High Court declares a provision of the Parliamentary Legislation as unconstitutional, the said decision is applicable throughout the territory of India/wherever the enactment was held applicable.”

Additionally, Article 261 of the Indian Constitution mandates “Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and of every State.”. The High Court is a court of record; it has the power to punish for its contempt. Fidelity to Article 261 demands ‘Full faith and credit’ to the judgement of a court concerning “any recognized law college, University or institution in India”. 

And yet, when asked whether the Delhi High Court’s ruling In Re Sushant Rohilla applied to the students, Prof. Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Khan, Director, Lloyd Law College, said Lloyd, ‘being affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University (CCSU), Meerut’, would ‘fall under the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court and not the Delhi High Court’. The question that the learned director must also respond to is whether or not Lloyd comes under the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India. 

Similar justifications were heard when a week ago, Aligarh Muslim University detained 81 Final-Year law students on the grounds of shortage of attendance. A common thread runs through both these instances. That the judgement of a High Court w.r.t a central body/law, is not binding upon another High Court.

The Writ Runs Clear

The High Courts have a wider sweep on writ jurisdictions, and the Supreme Court has repeated this ad nauseam across multiple judgements.

The writ jurisdiction of the High Courts goes beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Post the judgement in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India & Anr., A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 532 and the 15^th Amendment, the power to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person can be exercised by any High Court ‘notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories’. Thus, the letter of the Constitution and the holdings of the Supreme Court do not hold High Courts as subordinate lower courts. It is a mightier writ court with all high and mighty power of superintendence over lower courts. In Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd & Ors., Vs State of Bihar & Ors., [(2004) 5 SCC 1]: “Under the constitutional scheme as framed for the judiciary, the Supreme Court and the High Courts, both are Courts of record. The High Court is not a court subordinate to the Supreme Court … The High Court exercises power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over all subordinate Courts and tribunals; the Supreme Court has not been conferred with any power of superintendence. If the Supreme Court and the High Courts both were thought of as brothers, the High Court has larger jurisdiction but the Supreme Court still remains the elder brother.”

If court orders, precedents and constitutional texts in plain English are being misinterpreted by Law School admins (public and private alike), we may have a different axe to grind. Then there are more important questions than detention based on class attendance. If the admin is unaware of such precedents, it is ignorant. If the admin thinks that the judgement is not applicable to it simply because it is a Bar Council-recognised institution in a different territory, it is incompetent. In any case, it questions the quality of legal education being provided in these institutions.