AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THE Court :-This is a writ petition made by the students of Fifth year LL. B Course under the University of Calcutta, admitted in the year 1996. At present the petitioners are students of third year of such course. ( 2 ) AT the time of admission, a syllabus was handed-over by the University of Calcutta to the students as prescribed by the Bar Council of India. The students after getting admission started their studies on the basis of such granted syllabus. ( 3 ) IN October 1997 and also in April 1998, Bar Council of India issued two Circulars giving a revised curriculum in respect of the students of the Five years law course and by such curriculum several to the subjects were introduced. ( 4 ) THE curriculum prescribed that the courses are to be incorporated by the University for the academic year 1998-99. Now two questions arose before this Court : (1)whether in the midest of the academic year, several courses other than syllabus can be introduced and if so whether the same will be suffering to the students or not? (2)whether such introduction of the courses by the Bar Council of India can be made without adoptions any consultation with the Universities in India? ( 5 ) I have come to know from Mr. Jayanta Biswas and Mr. Dipankar Dutta, the learned counsels appearing for the University of Calcutta that no such consultation process was carried out by the Bar Council of India with the University of Calcutta. Two professors being Professor Somnath Mitra and Professor Tilak Nath Ray were consulted as stated by the Bar Council of India in their written instruction, is not acceptable because the same is not active consultation with the University. Such Professors rendering their services in a College under the University. ( 6 ) IT appears from the annexure 'a' to the Affidavit of the Bar Council of India being written instructions of the Secretary is as follows :-"the Bar Council of India had organised a three day All India Consultative Meeting of Bar Councils, Universities, UGC and State Governments in association with the National Law School of India University at Bangalore on reforming professional legal education between 12-14 October 1996. The said Consultative Meeting was attended by 34 law professors from various parts of the country representing different Universities apart from a number of sitting and retired Judges, Chairman and Members of the State Bar Councils, Government Officers, representative of the University Grants Commission etc. A list of the participants is attached to the report of the proceedings of the Bangalore meeting held between 12-14 October, 1996. In fact Prof. Somnath Mitra and Prof. Tilak Nath Ray represented the Calcutta University at the consultative meeting and recommendations of which meeting were later accepted by the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Calcutta. The UGC is represented in the Legal Education Committee and it is a party to the entire process of formulating the new curriculum which was later implemented by the Bar Council of India from the academic year 1998-99. The new curriculum was to be implemented prospectively. Need for revising the scheme was felt by the Bar Council of India to make legal Education capable of facing challenges posed by the prospect of globalisation of the legal profession in the wake of signing the GATT Agreement. Legal profession is enlisted as one of the services in the GATT Agreement and any reversal at this stage will pose serious problem to the process of reforming Legal Education. In fact the recommendations of the consultative committee were not to add more subjects in the curriculum but the council has reduced it to 21 compulsory papers and 3 optional papers apart from 4 papers in the practical training. The subjects included in the curriculum are necessarily to be taught as otherwise there will be difficulty in recognising the degrees and eligiblity to practice under the GATT. Several Universities have included more subjects than what the Bar Council of India has prescribed. The recommendations of the consultative meeting are enclosed to this affidavit as annexure 'a' for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the allegation that the Calcutta University has not been consulted is baseless and therefore it is refuted. Several Universities have included more subjects than what the Bar Council of India has prescribed. The recommendations of the consultative meeting are enclosed to this affidavit as annexure 'a' for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the allegation that the Calcutta University has not been consulted is baseless and therefore it is refuted. In view of the above stated facts, the consultation process as envisaged under section 7 (h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is complete and the new scheme envolved for implementation by the Bar Council of India does not suffer from any informity and therefore the reliefs sought by the petitioners deserved to be rejected by the Hon'ble Court". ( 7 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Sekhar Mustaphi, learned counsel appearing that the Bar Council of India has taken a plea that consultation process, in effect, was happened before with the UGC as well as from two Professors being representative of Calcutta University. Therefore, consultation was made. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to me, such consultation cannot be treated adoptation of actual consultation process in limine. In democratic system, actual consultation process has to be adopted by all the parties concerned irrespective of any submissions made by the petitioners to that extent. For the purpose of getting an idea in respect of actual consultation process, I have gone through the section 7 (i) (h) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which speaks as follows :-"to promote legal education and to let out standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such of the State Bar Councils". ( 9 ) ONE should not read with the part of the enactment casually because it has a greater impact towards the Society. The word "universities in India" does not necessarily mean the UGC or a particular University or deemed University alone. It has to be all concerned Universities in India. Legal system in India is not equal everywhere. State machinery has various say in this respect. The legal education does not necessarily mean implementation of the Central Act alone, so that mechanically one has to adopt the reference of the Bar Council of India in respect of such act. There are various local laws. Students of an University is a State might have been well-equipped with similar nature of local laws. Therefore question of necessity of discussion is obvious. There are various local laws. Students of an University is a State might have been well-equipped with similar nature of local laws. Therefore question of necessity of discussion is obvious. It may so happen nature of study of one central law may be duplication of nearer State law. In such case students may be overburdened. Similarly other aspect is when one of the University is running three years course, other University is running five years course. Therefore, unless actual consultation is made in between University to University cannot be granted on a particular date of their educational year as cut off date of the year. Therefore, if such implementation is given effect in a particular year then, of course, it should be notified in the curriculum that implementation will be applicable to the Students who entered in the First year class. So that the students can get opportunity of their studies. ( 10 ) AGAIN, similarly the courses, as adopted by the National Law School of India University at Bangalore as per the written instruction of the Bar Council of India cannot be adopted by the University because such deemed University of Law is granting Honours Degree in respect of Five years LL. B Courses. Therefore, desimilaritie are present everywhere. ( 11 ) HENCE all the above aspects and parapheranalias are to be taken into account separately on the basis of actual consultation process and cannot be regarded as an actual consultation to give effect in the midst of their courses when the study was advancing as per one discipline and syllabus. ( 12 ) MR. Arunava Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has cited two judgments in favour of the above point of argument. Firstly he cited AIR 1971 SC 1696 (Prakash Chand Maheshwari and Anr. v. The Zilla Parishad, Muzaffarnagar and Ors ). I have carefully considered the relevant parts of the judgment. It appears that consultation or deliberation is not complete or effective before the parties thereto make their respective points of view known to him other or others and discuss and examine the relative merits of their views. ( 13 ) HE further cited AIR 1982 SC 149 (S. P. Gupta and Ors. v. President of India and Ors. with other cases ). The observation of the Supreme Court is that the consultation must be meaningful, purposeful and result oriented. ( 13 ) HE further cited AIR 1982 SC 149 (S. P. Gupta and Ors. v. President of India and Ors. with other cases ). The observation of the Supreme Court is that the consultation must be meaningful, purposeful and result oriented. ( 14 ) EVEN thereafter till this day modus of active consultation has been firmly adopted by the Supreme Court as many occasions which is, by now, well known. ( 15 ) UNDER such circumstances, the applicability of such curriculum towards the students of the Third year without adoption the actual consultation process is to be declared as non est and is declared as non est by this Court. ( 16 ) SO fare the first point is concerned, it appears that the implementation of the curriculum is not come of non-application of mind. There are two reasons for the same. One is the period of applicability i. e. 1998-99 and other is of giving effect of prospective nature. Therefore, if it is implemented by the Bar Council of India from the academic year 1998-99 and also prospectively that means whosoever is taking admission in the law courses of the Universities in that year. It will be applicable to them only for their future 3rd year course but of course, after active consultation as aforesaid but not in respect of Students of the present third year. Therefore, since the applicability is accepted by the Bar Council of India giving prospective effect, implementation has to be construed from the first academic session of the year 1998-99. Therefore, even to such extent the courses as wanted to be implemented by the Bar Council of India cannot be applicable to the Third year Students. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination there would be any ground to refuse the order as prayed herein. I am convinced in accepting the contentions of the writ petitioners. ( 17 ) UNDER such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed on contest. As a result whereof, Students of 3rd year of the Law Course under the Calcutta University will be entitled to sit for the examination as per the existing syllabus prior to the introduction of the curriculum by the Bar Council of India. However, there will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the judgment on the usual undertaking. Petition allowed.