JUDGMENT - M.S. JAMDAR, J.:---The challenge in this writ petition is to Rule 5 of Part IV of the Rules of Bar Council of India in respect of the Standards of Legal Education Recognition of Degrees in Law. 2. Upto academic year 1981-82 as per Rule 1 of part IV of the then existing Bar Council of India Rules, relating to the standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law, for admission as an Advocate a degree in law obtained from any University in the territory of India after 12th day of March, 1967 was recognised for the purpose of section 24(1)(c)(iii) of the Advocate's Act, 1961, provided that at the time of joining the course of instruction in law for a degree in law, the candidate was a graduate of University or possessed such academic qualification which was considered equivalent to a graduate's degree of a University by the Bar Council of India and that the law degree was obtained after undergoing a course of study in law for a minimum period of three years as provided in the rules. However, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 49 read with section 7(h) and (i), 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iii)(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the 'said Act'), the Bar Council of India decided to change the pattern of legal education in the country and formulated a new law course which contemplates that at the time of joining the course of instructions in law for a degree in law the person concerned has passed an examination in 10+2 Course of schooling recognised by the educational authority of the Central or the State Governments or possesses such academic qualifications which are considered equivalent to such 10+2 courses by the Bar Council of India, and the law degree has been obtained after undergoing a regular course of study in a duly recognised law college under said rules for a minimum period of five years, out of which the first two years shall be devoted to study of pre-law courses as necessary qualification for admission to three years course of study in law to be commenced thereafter. A resolution adopting new pattern of legal education was considered in a meeting of the Bar Council of India held on 17th/18th April, 1982 and was passed in a meeting held on 6th/7th May, 1982. A resolution adopting new pattern of legal education was considered in a meeting of the Bar Council of India held on 17th/18th April, 1982 and was passed in a meeting held on 6th/7th May, 1982. Consequently, the Bar Council of India Rules regarding the standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law for admission as Advocate were amended and rules contained in Part IV were replaced by a new set of rules, which into force from 1-6-1982. 3. At this stage we would like to quote the Preamble of the new Rules in Part IV, formulated by the Bar Council of India, because the purpose stated in the preamble has some relevance while considering the challenge in this writ petition :--- "Preamble of the Rules of the Bar Council of India in Part IV :--- Whereas there is almost complete unanimity of opinion in the country that Legal Education needs to be drastically altered and improved ; And whereas piecemeal changes introduced from time to time have not brought about any significant raising of standards and improvement in the quality of new entrants to the Bar ; And whereas it is the statutory obligation of the Bar Council of India to promote legal Education and to lay down standards of such education for purposes of admission to the Bar. And whereas the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India has examined the problem in great depth in consultation with the Universities and State Bar Councils and made its proposals. And whereas the Bar Council of India has considered the implications and merits of the said proposals. And whereas it is now recognised the world over that apart from technical knowledge of law a liberal education involving exposure to other disciplines and fields of knowledge in particular the humanities is essential to enable a lawyer to make a useful contribution to social change and development. This Council in exercise of its powers under sections 7(h) and (i), 24 and 49(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and all other powers enabling so to do, make the following Rules. 4. Rule 5, the vires which is challenged in this writ petition, reads as follows :--- "Admission of a student to the course of instruction in law shall ordinarily be on the basis of merit. 4. Rule 5, the vires which is challenged in this writ petition, reads as follows :--- "Admission of a student to the course of instruction in law shall ordinarily be on the basis of merit. No student shall be admitted to the course of instruction in law unless he has inter alia, obtained 45 per cent marks in the aggregate in the qualifying examination for the admission. Provided that in the case of students of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes a relaxation of marks upto 5% in the qualifying examinations may be given." 5. The challenge to the Rule is made under the following circumstances. According to the new rules the Universities were supposed to introduce the new law course from the academic year 1982-83, though an option was given to all the Universities to continue the old course under an intimation to the Bar Council of India, for a term not exceeding two years from 1982-83. The Pune University decided to introduce the new law course from the academic year 1982-83 and the first respondent, Symbosis Society's Law College, Pune took a lead in this matter in the State of Maharashtra and implemented the new law course from the academic year 1983-84. Applications for admission were duly invited by the first respondent. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 and others, some of whom belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes sought admission to the first year of the new law course, even though they did not possess requisite percentage of marks viz. 40% for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 45% for other categories. Admittedly all the students were admitted provisionally and they were informed at the time admission that their admission was provisional and was subject to the relaxation by the Bar Council of India of the qualifications regarding qualifying marks for admission. 6. However, on 22nd June, 1983 respondent No. 1---College, addressed a letter to the Dean of Law Faculty, University of Poona, pointing out that the condition of requirement of 45% qualifying marks created considerable hardship to a large section of students. The college also suggested certain measures for removing the hardship caused to large section of students who failed to obtain the minimum requisite percentage prescribed for admission to the law Course. 7. The college also suggested certain measures for removing the hardship caused to large section of students who failed to obtain the minimum requisite percentage prescribed for admission to the law Course. 7. The Faculty of law of the Pune University in a meeting held on 3-7-1983 adopted the standard prescribed by the Bar Council of India for admission to the new law course while recommending to the Bar Council of India that the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for admission to the new five-year law course be relaxed and a candidate securing 40% marks in XII or equivalent examination (35% marks in case of B.C. candidate) should be allowed to be admitted to the new five-year law course. 8. Thereafter the above-referred students who were provisionally admitted and who were apprehensive that their provisional admissions may be cancelled, addressed a letter/representation dated 13th August, 1983 to the President, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, and brought to his notice the predicament in which they were landed in view of the provisional admissions granted to them and requested him to consider their case sympathetically and allow them to continue their studies in the faculty of law. They also mentioned in the side letter that they had learnt that the University had passed a resolution to the effect that the admissions to the pre-law course should be given to the students who had obtained 40% marks at H.S.C. (for B.C. 35%) against the Bar Council requirement of 45%. 9. The Principal of the College-1st respondent also wrote a letter Dt. 16-8-1983 to Shri Ram Jethmalani, former President of the Bar Council of India and pointed out to him that the requirement of minimum qualifying marks of 45% for admission was causing considerable hardship to a large section of the student body and suggested that the minimum percentage be revised to 40% (35% for B.C. students) for obtaining admission to the first year of new law course. It was stated that the said proposal was in keeping with the spirit of the recent resolution passed by the Law Faculty of Poona University at a meeting held on Sunday, the 3rd July, 1983. It was also mentioned that for admission to first year L.L.B. (three years course) the minimum qualifying percentage of marks was 40% in B.A., B.Com., B.Sc. It was also mentioned that for admission to first year L.L.B. (three years course) the minimum qualifying percentage of marks was 40% in B.A., B.Com., B.Sc. or other qualifying examinations with relaxation of 5% in case of S.C. and S.T. candidates and that in order to maintain the uniformity it was necessary that this percentage was also implemented for the admission to the first year of new five-year course. 10. However, as the Law Faculty of Poona University had adopted the standard laid down by the Bar Council of India and had only recommended to the Bar Council of India to reduce the minimum percentage of qualifying marks, the Registrar of the Poona University in his letter dated 2nd September, 1983, addressed to the Secretary, Bar Council of India, copy whereof was also endorsed to the Principal of the Symbosis society's Law College, 1st respondent, had made it clear that the University had not passed any resolution to the effect that the admissions to the pre-law course should be given to the students who have obtained 40% marks at H.S.C. (for B.C. 35%) against the Bar Council requirement of 45% and asserted that the statement to the effect in the representation made by the students was wrong. In the endorsement, forwarding a copy of the said letter to the Principal of the first respondent, the Register of the University directed the principal to ensure that no student not fulfilling the requirement of Circular No. 141 of 1983-84 was admitted to his college and if any admissions were given wrongly, the same should be forthwith cancelled. 11. In his reply dated 12-9-1983, the Principal of the first respondent brought to the notice of the Registrar the recommendatory resolution passed by the Law Faculty of Pune University, as also the representation made to the Bar Council of India by the College authorities and the students concerned. However, whole stating that the decision of the Bar Council of India was awaited, the Principal of the first respondent stated that in compliance with the direction issued by the Registrar, necessary orders directing cancellation of admissions of 28 students were being issued. However, whole stating that the decision of the Bar Council of India was awaited, the Principal of the first respondent stated that in compliance with the direction issued by the Registrar, necessary orders directing cancellation of admissions of 28 students were being issued. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the Secretary, Bar Council of India with a request to consider the case favourably as most of the students were disqualified because of the technical hitch inspect of they being sincere and enthusiastic students intending to make a career in law. The Bar Council, however did not respond and in our view rightly, and hence the petitioners and other students, who were provisionally admitted, were informed by a general notice dated 9-9-1983 that as they did not secure minimum qualifying marks, their admission stood cancelled as per directives received from the University of Pune. It is this circular which is sought to be quashed. The petitioners also pray that the respondents be prevented by an order and injunction from cancelling their admissions and or preventing them from attending college and tutorials in the first respondent college. 12. As mentioned above, while granting admissions to the petitioner and other 22 students, the college authorities had made it clear to them that their admissions were provisional and subject to the relaxation by the Bar Council of India of the qualification regarding the minimum percentage of marks required for admission to the new five-years law course. It appears that the college authorities felt that this qualification caused hardship to a large number of students and was more stringent than the qualification prescribed for admission to the three-year law course. The college authorities, therefore, moved the University authorities as also the Bar Council of India. As mentioned above, the Law Faculty of the Pune University while adopting the standard laid down by the Bar Council of India, recommended to the Bar Council of India that the minimum qualifying marks for admission to the new five-year law course be relaxed. This recommendation being obviously inconsistent with Rule 5, was not accepted b the Bar Council of India and hence the University authorities and ultimately the first respondent were justified in doing in view of the decision taken by the Bar Council of India. 13. This recommendation being obviously inconsistent with Rule 5, was not accepted b the Bar Council of India and hence the University authorities and ultimately the first respondent were justified in doing in view of the decision taken by the Bar Council of India. 13. The Bar Council of India did not respond favourably to the representation made by the concerned students and the first respondent college and the recommendation made by the Law Faculty of the Pune University, obviously in view of Rule 5 quoted above. It is contended by the petitioners that this Rule is ultra vires the powers of the Bar Council of India because the Bar Council has no power to prescribe the minimum percentage of marks for the purpose of admission to the law Course. It is, however, difficult to accept this submission in view of the clear statutory provisions contained on the Advocates Act, 1961. 14. Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules relates to the standards of legal education and recognition of Degrees in law, framed under section 7(1)(h) and (i), 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia) and 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 7(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, lays down the functions of the Bar Council of India. It will be seen from Clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act that 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, is one of the statutory functions of the Bar Council of India. As per Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, to recognise Universities whose degrees in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an Advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities, is also a function of the Bar Council of India. Section 24 deals with the qualification which a person must possess for his admission as an advocate on the State Roll. Section 24 deals with the qualification which a person must possess for his admission as an advocate on the State Roll. As per sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 24 of the said Act a person obtaining a degree in law after 12th day of March, 1967 should have done so, save as provided in sub-Clause (iiia), after undergoing a three-year course of study in law from any University in India which is recognised for the purpose of the said Act by the Bar Council of India; and sub-clause (iiia) lays down that in the alternative he should have obtained a degree after undergoing a course of study in law, duration of which is not less than two academic years from the academic year 1967-68 or any earlier academic year from any University in India which is recognised for the purpose of the said Act by the Bar Council of India. Sub section (1) of section 49 confers powers on the Bar Council of India to make rules for discharge of its functions under the Advocates Act, 1961. Clauses (a) to (i) sub-section (1) of section 49 of the said Act lay down that such rules may prescribe in particular. As per Clause (af), which was substituted by Act 60 of 1973, such rules may prescribe minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of Degree in Law in any recognised University, while as per sub-clause (ag) such Rules may prescribe class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates. Sub-clause (d) provides that such rules may prescribe the standards legal education to be observed by universities in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose. It is, therefore, clear that the Bar Council of India, in discharge of its statutory functions of promising legal education and laying down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and State Bar councils and 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, is competent to frame rules regarding the minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of Degree in Law in any recognised University and also the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in India. 15. 15. A question about the scope of the power conferred on the Bar Council of India by section 24 of the Act fell for consideration of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case (Bar Council of India, New Delhi and another v. Gundimeda Keshvaramayya and another)1, A.I.R. 1972 A.P. 206. In that case the resolution passed by the Bar Council of India to the effect that no degree of law obtained after 30th June, 1964 from any University in India was recognised unless such degree was obtained after undergoing a course of study in law for a minimum period of two years after graduation, provided, however, that nothing therein contained was to affect a person who had commenced a course of study in law before graduation prior to 28th February, 1963 and obtained a degree in law before the 1st October, 1966, was challenged by the respondent in that case. The application for enrolment as an advocate of the respondent was rejected by the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh because though the respondent took up a course of study in law prior to 28th February, 1963, be took the degree in 1969, and thus lacked the requisite qualification for this enrolment. It was contended on behalf of the respondent in that case that the fixation of the upper limit of 1-10-1966 was ultra vires the powers of the Bar Council of India and was, therefore, null and void. The writ was granted by a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court but in appeal the Division Bench upheld the validity of the Resolution holding that section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 conferred unqualified power and discretion on the Bar Council of India to recognise or not to recognise the degrees in law conferred by the Universities in India after 28-2-1963 and the Council was, therefore, competent to take such steps for the promotion of legal education and in pursuit of that objective to lay down standards of such education which necessarily implied power to define standard of general education as a condition for admission to the course of law. It is pertinent to note that sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 24, as it stood at the relevant time, provided that a person who obtained a degree in law after 28th February, 1963 from any University in the territory of India was qualified for admission as an advocate on a State Roll, only if the degree was recognised for the purpose of the Act by the Bar Council of India. The resolution impugned in that case was passed in exercise of this power to recognise degrees obtained after 28th February, 1963. A part from that, when this matter was decided, Clause (af) of sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, was not on the statute book. This clause was substituted by Act 60 of 1973 which came into force on 31-1-1974. It specifically empowers the Bar Council of India to frame rules for prescribing minimum qualifications required for admission to the course of degree in law in any recognised University. 16. In (Aperna Basu Malick v. Bar Council of India and others)2, A.I.R. 1983 Calcutta 461, the decision on which reliance is sought to be placed by Shri Vashi, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners. Rule 1(1), Part IV, of the Bar Council of India Rules as they stood before being replaced by the present Rules, which prescribed that after March 12, 1967 a degree in law obtained from any University shall not be recognised for the purpose of section 24(1)(c)(iii) of the Advocates Act, unless certain conditions mentioned therein were fulfilled, was struck down by the Calcutta High Court, as ultra vires the provisions of section 49(1)(d) and 24(1)(c)(iii) as also section 7(1) of the Advocates Act. In that case the application for enrolment as an Advocate by a woman candidate, who obtained the degree in law from the University of Calcutta as a non collegiate student in compliance with Regulation 35 of the Calcutta University First Regulations (1951), was rejected on the ground that the course of study in law by regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures, tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised by a University as envisaged by Clause (c) of Rule 1(1) of the Bar Council of India Rules. The learned Judges of the Division Bench upheld the challenge by observing as follows in para 17 of the judgment :--- "It is true that section 24(1) which lays down conditions for enrolment as advocate on a State roll has been made subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under, but such Rules have to be made by the Bar Council of India in accordance with the provisions of the Act, that is to say, within the ambit of its rule-making power as conferred by section 49(1) of the Act. C1ause (d) of section 49(1) does not on the face of it, authorise the Bar Council of India to lay down conditions of enrolment. Under Clause (d), the Bar Council of India can frame rules relating to the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities for that purpose. 'Standards of legal education' and 'conditions of enrolment' are two distinct matters, one having no connection with the other. The impugned rule 1(1) of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, does not lay down any standard of legal education. It lays down the conditions of enrolment which is not the function of the Bar Council of India. Its function for the purpose of section 24(1)(c)(iii) is to recognise the Indian University for the purpose of the Act. Further, by the impugned Rule 1(1), the Bar Council of India purports to amend section 24(1)(c)(iii) of the Act, which it cannot." However, this decision cannot be of any avail to the petitioners because the challenge in this case is not to the Rule relating to the enrolment of advocates but the challenge is to Rule 5 which prescribes the minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of degree in law in any recognised University, which Bar Council of India is competent to frame in view of the powers conferred upon it by Clause (af) of sub section (1) of section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961. 17. It was next urged that this rule is arbitrary and has no rational nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved. The preamble to the Rules, quoted above, completely negatives this contention. 17. It was next urged that this rule is arbitrary and has no rational nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved. The preamble to the Rules, quoted above, completely negatives this contention. As stated in the preamble, there was almost complete unanimity of opinion in the country that the legal education needs to be drastically altered and improved and that the piecemeal changes introduced from time to time had not brought about any significant raising of standards and improvement in the quality of new entrants to the Bar. It is also categorically stated in the preamble that the Rules were framed in discharge of the statutory obligation cast upon the Bar Council of India to promote the legal education and to law down the standard of such education for the purpose of a admission to the Bar and that the Rules were formulated after the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India examined the problem in great depth in consultation with the Universities and State Bar Council and after considering the implications and import of the proposals. It cannot be denied that fixing a particular percentage for admission to new course is an important step towards improvement of the standard of legal education. considering the complexity of the legal system and ever-expanding sweep of the legislation in a welfare state having a democratic system and committed to social, economic and political justice a student aspiring to have a legal career must have the basic equipment needed to acquire knowledge of humanities which deal with various facets of the complex modern human life. One of the methods of ensuring that only such students take up law course as have aptitude for it, is to lay down a minimum qualifying standard for admission No profession can maintain high standard if it is allowed to be inundated by persons who reluctantly took up the law course because having failed to secure admission to the courses of their choice, they have nothing else to do. The prescribed minimum qualification, therefore, has a rational nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved. We also do not feel that the percentage fixed is in any manner arbitrary. It is reasonable, and more so in view of the general pattern of percentage of marks generally obtained at the qualifying examinations. The prescribed minimum qualification, therefore, has a rational nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved. We also do not feel that the percentage fixed is in any manner arbitrary. It is reasonable, and more so in view of the general pattern of percentage of marks generally obtained at the qualifying examinations. We are told that practically similar qualifying standard is laid down for admission to other professional courses. There is, therefore, no substance in the challenge to the Rule on the basis of which the admissions of the petitioners and other were cancelled. 18. The logical corollary of this conclusion would be to uphold the notice issued by the first respondent to the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates cancelling their provisional admissions. But the earlier narration will clearly show that the students alone cannot be blamed. It appears that in spite of the clear mandate of the Bar Council of India and the University, the first respondent-college proceeded to grant admissions, though provisional, to the petitioners and other similarly situated students with a pious hope that their representation to the Bar Council of India that the qualifying standard should be reduced, would be accepted. No doubt the college made genuine efforts to get the qualification relaxed and for that purpose laid emphasis amongst other, on the circumstance that it was the first institution to start the new law course when other institutions were in two minds. But this conduct on the part of the institution operated as a representation to the concerned students that the qualification would be relaxed. It is also pertinent to note that the decision to cancel their provisional admissions was communicated to the petitioners and other students in September 1983, when doors of other educational avenues were closed. Hence to uphold the cancellation of their admissions would cause irreparable hardship to the petitioners and other similarly situated students for very little fault on their part. The blame for the predicament in which the petitioners and other students are landed, clearly lies on the institution which granted admissions tot he petitioners and others inspite of the clear mandate of the Bar Council of India. Moreover, if the petitioners and other similarly situated students are allowed to continue their education, it would not be necessary to create more seats, nor would it impose additional financial burden on the University or the Government. 19. Moreover, if the petitioners and other similarly situated students are allowed to continue their education, it would not be necessary to create more seats, nor would it impose additional financial burden on the University or the Government. 19. Hence, while rejecting the challenge to the relevant Rule framed by the Bar Council of India, we direct, though reluctantly, the respondents to allow the petitioners and other similarly situated students to continue their education for the new five-year law course as if they were validly admitted. Rule made absolute, to that extent. No order as to costs. ----