Judgment :- When the 1st respondent/deemed university applied for permission to establish a Law College, the Bar Council of India rejected in view of Rule 18. 2. Two writ petitions were filed, each by the Deemed University. Both were allowed. Against that, two writ appeals were filed, and heard by the Division Bench consisting of F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. and S. Tamilvanan, J. They differed in their views and therefore, this matter has been placed before me. 3. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R. Thiagarajan appearing for the Bar Council submitted that the power of the Bar Council of India is undisputed and without their per¬mission no degree granted by any College will be of any use to any Advocate since with-out being enrolled by the Bar Council, no one will be entitled to practice. Neither of the respondents has challenged the relevant Rule and therefore, it is evident that they concede the rule making power of the Bar Council of India. It was submitted that there is no repugnancy nor inconsistency between the Tamil Nadu Ambedkar Law University Act (State Act in short) and The Advocates Act, 1961, (Central Act in short) under which the Bar Council of India Rules are framed (Rules in short) and therefore, the issue whether the Central Act occupies the field totally or not, does not require to be answered. The Rule framed by the Bar Council in view of Section 7 of the Advocate Act itself insists upon permission from the State Govt before starting a new Law College, by reference to the State Act. Legislation by reference is one of the accepted modes of legislation and what is in the State Act has been made part of the Bar Council Rules. 4. The learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 7(1)(h) and Section 49 of the Advocates Act. According to him, the Rule is an example of legislation by reference. He submitted that the amended Rule 18(2) of the Bar Council Rules should be read in an harmonious manner and the words "approval of affiliation" should be ignored where university or deemed university is concerned. So according to the learned Senior Counsel the Rule should be read as it is where a Law College or a Dept of Law is concerned, but without the words where University or Deemed University is concerned. If read thus, there would be no difficulty. So according to the learned Senior Counsel the Rule should be read as it is where a Law College or a Dept of Law is concerned, but without the words where University or Deemed University is concerned. If read thus, there would be no difficulty. The permission or no objection from the State which is the requirement under the Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act is a condition, which must be satisfied by the Deemed University. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, Mr. G. Rajagopal and Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy submitted that it is not necessary for them to challenge the Rule since it does not apply to them. It was submitted that this is not a case of legislation by reference since in a case of legislation by reference the law which is referred to will be specified. In this case, the Rules merely say that if there is a law requiring such permission, then that condition must be satisfied. The provision in the State Act cannot apply to a Deemed University, which does not require affiliation and therefore, the respondents can justifiably pray for quashing of the impugned order without challenging the constitutionality of the Rule. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the amended Rule was a clear indication of the abdication of power by the Bar Council of India to the State. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Student Federation of India supported the case of the Bar Council. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Dr. Ambedkar Law University submitted that Section 6(2) of the State Act applies to existing Universities and Universities which in¬tend to start colleges and Section 7(1)(m) of the Central Act gives the Bar Council the power to make rules for discharging all the functions mentioned above in the said subsection. This includes Section 7(1)(h), which deals with the promotion of legal education in laying down the standards of education and it is for this purpose that they had laid down the condition. 8. This includes Section 7(1)(h), which deals with the promotion of legal education in laying down the standards of education and it is for this purpose that they had laid down the condition. 8. The amended Rule which has given rise to the impugned order reads as follows: (2) Every Law College, University, Deemed University & Department of the law of any University and applying for approval of affiliation shall obtain permission/no objection (for establishment of law college) from Government or Higher Education Department of the State, if the same is a requirement under the prevailing law or any order in the State." It is claimed that this is a referential legislation. The law relating to this is explained in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad V. Jainul Islam & Anr. (JT 1998 (1) SC 231), the Supreme Court held as follows: "A subsequent legislation often makes a reference to an earlier legislation so as to make the provisions of the earlier legislation applicable to matters covered by the later legislation. Such a legislation may either be (i) a referential legislation which merely contains a reference to or the citation of the provisions of the earlier statute; or (ii) a legislation by incorporation whereunder the provisions of the earlier legislation to which reference is made are incorporated into the later legislation by reference. If it is a referential legislation the provisions of the earlier legislation to which reference is made in the subsequent legislation would be applicable as it stands on the date of application of such to referred in the earlier legislation to matters referred subsequent legislation." 9. The following judgment was relied on to show that the Rule had to be complied with, viz; N. C. T.E. v. Committee of Management ( 2006 (4) SCC 65 ), where, the Supreme Court held, "15. For the afore-mentioned purpose, it is not necessary for us to determine the question as to whether the provisions of the Regulations are imperative in character or not. There cannot, however, be any doubt or dispute that even if they are directory in nature, substantial compliance thereof was necessary." 10. The respondents are Deemed Universities. The status of a Deemed University is described in Bharati Vidyapeeth V. Stare of Maharashtra ( 2004 (11) SCC 755 ), “18. There cannot, however, be any doubt or dispute that even if they are directory in nature, substantial compliance thereof was necessary." 10. The respondents are Deemed Universities. The status of a Deemed University is described in Bharati Vidyapeeth V. Stare of Maharashtra ( 2004 (11) SCC 755 ), “18. Under Section 3 or the Act, deemed University status will be given to those institutions that for historical reasons or for any other circumstances are not Universities and yet are doing work of a high standard in specialized academic field compared to a University and that granting of a University status would en-able them to further contribute to the course of higher education which would mutually enrich the institution and the University system. Guidelines for considering proposals for declaring an institution as deemed to be University were also issued by the UGC. Under the said guidelines aspects relating to admission was specifically entrusted with the UGC and admission could be made only through a common entrance test on All-India basis. Such an exercise was intended to maintain a uniform standard and level of excellence. As we have pointed out, admission plays a crucial role in maintaining of the high quality of education. And for the proper maintenance of academic excellence, as intended by the UGC Act, ad-missions to deemed University has to be made under the control of UGC. This further goes to show that admission procedure to a deemed to be University Is fully occupied by Entry 66 of List I and the State cannot exercise any powers over admission procedure. 19. Therefore, the State could not have enacted any legislation in that regard. If that is so, neither in exercise of executive power nor in respect of power arising under the Maharashtra State Universities Act, such rules could have been prescribed. To the extent the High Court holds to the contrary, we set aside the order of the High Court.” And further held, "It would not be appropriate for the State to contend that even though the institution has now attained the deemed university status it is not beyond the clutches of the State in the matter of admissions of the students to such colleges as before granting of the deemed university status, the State was indeed consulted and the State conveyed its strong recommendation for grant of such status. Particularly when such status has been granted after consulting the Government concerned, we do not think that such argument on the basis of local needs should be accepted." 11. In Govt. of A.P. V. J.B. Educational Society ((2005) (3) SCC 212 = 2005-3-L.W.1), the Supreme Court held, "12. Thus, the question of repugnancy between the Parliamentary legislation and the State legislation can arise in two ways. First, where the legislations, though enacted with respect to matters in their allotted sphere, overlap and conflict. Second, where the two legislations are with respect to matters in Concurrent List and there is a conflict. In both the situations, Parliamentary legislation will predominate, in the first, by virtue of the non-obstante clause in Article 246(1), in the second, by reason of Article 245(1). Clause (2) of Article 245 deals with a situation where the State legislation having been reserved and having obtained Presidents ascent prevails in that State; this again is subject to the proviso that the Parliament can again bring a legislation to override even such State legislation." 12. To counter this contention regarding the position of deemed universities vis-à-vis the State, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad referred to the following paragraph from Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology V. Union of India & 2 others ( 2006 (3) LW 499 ). "Therefore, the role of the AICTE vis-à-vis the Universities has been spelt out specifically. The decision in the above case applies undoubtedly to deemed to be universities. The AICTE is not a silent spectator nor a passive player. It will act in co¬ordination with the UGC, as we will see in our answer to the next question, in order to achieve the objects for which it was set up " He submitted that on an analogous view this case will have to be decided, and the Bar Council nor the State can be a silent spectator. The role of the Bar Council has been explained in several decisions. In O.N. Mohindroo V. Bar Council, Delhi, ( AIR 1968 SC 888 ) the Supreme Court held, "9. The Advocates Act was passed to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar Councils and an All-India Bar. … 10. The object of the Act is thus to constitute one common Bar for the whole country and to provide machinery for its regulated functioning. The Advocates Act was passed to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar Councils and an All-India Bar. … 10. The object of the Act is thus to constitute one common Bar for the whole country and to provide machinery for its regulated functioning. Since the Act sets up one Bar, autonomous in its character, the Bar Councils set up thereunder have been entrusted with the power to regulate the working the profession and to prescribe rules of professional conduct and etiquette, and the power to punish those who commit breach of such rules.” 13. It was contended on behalf of the appellants and those Supporting the appellants that therefore, the Bar Council of India has the power to impose conditions for establishment of a new Law College. Sections 7 and 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 reads thus: "7. Functions of Bar Council of India. 1[(1)] The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be .(h) 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;" "49. General power of the Bar Council of India to make rules. Functions of Bar Council of India. 1[(1)] The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be .(h) 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;" "49. General power of the Bar Council of India to make rules. 1[(1)] The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act and particular, such rules may prescribe.] 2[(a) the conditions subject to which an advocate may he entitled to vote at an election to the State Bar Council, including the qualifications or disqualifications of voters, and the matter in which an electoral roll of voters may be prepared and revised by a State Bar Council; (ab) Qualifications for membership of a Bar Council and the disqualifications for such membership; (ac) the time within which and the manner in which effect may be given to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3; (ad) The manner in which the name of any advocate may be prevented from being entered in more than one State roll; (ae) The manner in which the seniority among advocates may be determined; 3[(af) The minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of degree in law in any recognised University;] (ag) The class or category of persons en-titled to be enrolled as advocates; (ah) The conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practise and the circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to practise as an advocate in a court;] .(b) The form in which an application shall be made for the transfer of the names of advocates from one State roll to another; .(c) The standards of professional con-duct and etiquette to be observed by advocates; (d) The standards of legal education to be observed by university in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose; .(e) The foreign qualifications in law obtained by person other than citizens of India, which shall be recognised for the purpose of admission as an advocate under this Act; .(f) The procedure to be followed by the disciplinary committee of State Bar Council and by its own disciplinary committee; .(g) The restrictions in the matter of practice to which senior advocates shall be subject; 3 [(gg) The form of dresses or robes to be worn by advocates, having regard to the climatic conditions, appearing before any court or tribunal]; .(h) The fees, which may be levied in respect of any matter under this Act; 2 [(i) general principles for guidance of State Bar Councils and the manner in which directions issued or orders made by the Bar Councils of India may be enforced;] .(j) Any other matter, which may be prescribed: 3[Provided that no rules made with reference to clause (c) or clause (gg) shall have effect unless they have approved by the Chief Justice of India]: 4 [Provided further that] no rules made with reference to clause (e) shall have effect unless they have been approved by the Central Government. 3[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to sub-section (1), any Rulemade with reference to clause (c) or clause (gg) of the said sub-section and in force immediately before commencement of the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1973, shall continue in force until altered or amended in accordance with the provisions if this Act." 14. In Bar Council of India V. Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law 2007 (2) SCC 202 , the Supreme Court held thus: "12. It is clear from the decision of the Constitution Bench in O.N. Mohindroo v. The Bar Council of Delhi and Ors. (supra) that in pith and substance, the Advocates Act falls under Entries 77 and 78 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. That apart, it is not necessary to postulate a conflict of legislation in this case as we have indicated earlier. It is true that under the University Act, the selection of a Principal of a College affiliated to the concerned University has been left to a Higher Education Services Commission and respondent No. 5 was included in the panel of selected candidates pursuant to a due selection by that Commission. It is also true that theoretically the State Government on the recommendation of the Director of Higher Education could appoint any one from that list as Principal of any College including a Law College. But, as the apex professional body, the Bar Council of India is concerned with the standards of the legal profession and the equipment of those who seek entry into that profession. The Bar Council of India is also thus concerned with the legal education in the country. Therefore, instead of taking a pedantic view of the situation, the State Government and the Recommending Authority are expected to ensure that the requirement set down by the Bar Council of India is also complied with. We are of the view that the High Court was not correct in its approach in postulating a conflict between the two laws and in resolving it based on Article 254(2) of the Constitution. Of course, the question whether the assent to the Act would also extend to the statute framed under it and that too to an amendment made subsequent to the assent are questions that do not call for an answer in this case in the light of the view we have adopted." 15. Of course, the question whether the assent to the Act would also extend to the statute framed under it and that too to an amendment made subsequent to the assent are questions that do not call for an answer in this case in the light of the view we have adopted." 15. The constitutionality or the validity of the Act has not been challenged. Therefore we are really not concerned with the tests laid down for referential legislation. But it must be noted that the Rule makes no mention to any previous law or piece of legislation, it con¬tents itself by saying "if same is a requirement under the prevailing law or any order in the State". The applicability of the Rule apart, it is a very unsatisfactory piece of drafting. It is not clear. The Rule makers appear to have used the "cut and paste" technique. This is the last thing that one expects of a Rule enacted by none other than the Bar Council. The meticulousness that had gone into statutes that have stood the test of time, has become old-fashioned and obsolete, it appears. Slipshod drafting is one of the negative fall-outs of mindless use of computers. This is, of course a remark en-passant, but one earnestly hopes that if the Bar Council is serious about improving the standards of legal education and the products that are churned out year after year it would spend a little more time and mind while drafting its Rules. According to the respondents, the rule does not apply. Originally, the Rule read thus: .(2) Every Law College applying for approval of affiliation shall obtain permission/no objection for establishment of law college from Government or Higher Education Department of the State, if the same is a requirement under the prevailing law or any order in the State." Now the Rule reads thus: .(2) Every Law College, University, Deemed University & Department of the law of any University and applying for approval of affiliation shall obtain permission/no objection (for establishment of law college) from Government or Higher Education Department of the State, if the same is a requirement under the prevailing law or any order in the State." The Rule can be divided into the four important parts. .(i) Every Law College, University, Deemed University and Department of Law of University. .(2) Applying for approval of affiliation. .(i) Every Law College, University, Deemed University and Department of Law of University. .(2) Applying for approval of affiliation. .(3) Shall obtain permission/ no objection for establishment of Law College. .(4) If the same is requirement under the prevailing law or any order in this State. .16. In the case of Saveetha Institute (W.A.No.929 of 2006), the Bar Council rejected their application for establishment of a new college since "it was not accompanied by (1) No Objection Certificate from the State Government and affiliation order from the University." and in the case of SASTRA, (W.A. No.933 of 2006) "According to Section 6(2) of Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act, 1996 there is a clear requirement for all the institutions to have obtained permission/NOC from the State Govt. .In view of the above, this Committee feels that before granting any approval of affiliation, it is necessary for this institution to obtain NOC/permission from the State Govt. as the case may be." .17. The Rule making power of the Bar Council arises from Section 15 of the Advocates Act, Subsection 1 of the said Section begins with these words: "The Bar Council may make Rules to carry out the purposes of this Chapter". The words "this Chapter" refers to Section 15(2). This is wholly devoted to Bar Council. Section 7 deals with functions of Bar Council of India. Therefore, as per Sub-section 1 of Section 15, the Bar Council has the power to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Chapter and specifically to provide for the purposes specified in Sub-section 2. The parties herein do not dispute the power of the Bar Council to enact Rules. Chapter 3 deals with admission of enrollment of Advocates. The Certificate of enrollment is issued under Section 22 in the prescribed form under State Bar Council to the person whose name is en-rolled and the qualifications for admission of a person as a Advocate on a State Rule are set down in Section 24 of the Act. Section 24(1)(c) provides that in addition to the conditions mentioned in Section 24(1)(a) to (c) the Advocate shall also fulfill such other conditions as may be specified in the Rules made by the State Bar Council. 18. Rule 16 of the Bar Council Rules reads thus: "16. Section 24(1)(c) provides that in addition to the conditions mentioned in Section 24(1)(a) to (c) the Advocate shall also fulfill such other conditions as may be specified in the Rules made by the State Bar Council. 18. Rule 16 of the Bar Council Rules reads thus: "16. A law college affiliated to a University shall by June 1, 1987 be an independent law college and shall cease to be a department attached to a college. 17. (1) No college after the coming into force of these Rules shall impart instruction in a course of study in law for enrolment as an advocate unless its affiliation has been approved by the Bar Council of India. (2). An existing law college shall not be competent to impart instruction in a course of study in law for enrolment as an advocate if the continuance of its affiliation is disapproved by the Bar Council of India." Rule 17 of the Bar Council Rules re-quires that after the coming into force of the Rules no college shall impart instruction unless its affiliation has been approved by the Bar Council of India. Rule 16 provides that the Law College affiliated to University will be an independent law college and will not be a department attached to a college. Rule 17(2) provides that existing law college cannot impart instruction if the continuance of its affiliation is disapproved by the Bar Council of India. 19. Neither of the respondents have challenged the constitutionality of the Act we need not go into the question of whether the Bar Council has the Rule making power. In-deed it would not be in the interest of the University to challenge the Bar Councils power, since if the Bar Council chooses not to recognize the degree offered by such Universities, then the persons who obtained the law from those Universities will not be enrolled and therefore, such degrees are of no use to the said persons. The appellants do not dispute the position that a Deemed University does not require affiliation. The appellants are therefore, conscious of the difficulties posed by language of the amended Rule and that is why Mr. R. Thiagarajan would submit that the words “applying for approval of affiliation” should be ignored where University and Deemed University are concerned and “read in” when it relates to law college and department of law of any University. 20. The appellants are therefore, conscious of the difficulties posed by language of the amended Rule and that is why Mr. R. Thiagarajan would submit that the words “applying for approval of affiliation” should be ignored where University and Deemed University are concerned and “read in” when it relates to law college and department of law of any University. 20. The guiding rule of interpretation is that he language of the Statute should be read as it is. .(i) In State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. G.S. Dall & Flour Mills and Others. ( AIR 1991 SC 772 ) the Supreme Court held thus: “It is well-established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. ….. Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly under-stood may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the legislature probably would have meant, although there has been an omission to enact it. In a Court of Law or Equity, what the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to en-act, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication." .(ii) The Privy Council in Crawford v. Spooner, 6 Moo. P.C.C. 8. stated as follows; “.. We cannot aid the legislatures defective phrasing of the Act, we cannot add, and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are left there." (iii) In Renula Bose (Smt.) V Rai Manmathnath Bose (AIR 1945 Privy Council 108) reads thus: “It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so….” Logically, it is contrary to Rules of construction “to read words out of an Act” as the appellant want the Court to do. (iv) In State of Kerala Vs. Mathai Verghese and Others ( 1986 (4) SCC 746 ), the supreme Court held, “the Court can merely interpret the section; it cannot re-write, recast or redesign the section. In interpreting the provision the exercise undertaken by the Court is to make explicit the intention of the legislature which enacted the legislation. (iv) In State of Kerala Vs. Mathai Verghese and Others ( 1986 (4) SCC 746 ), the supreme Court held, “the Court can merely interpret the section; it cannot re-write, recast or redesign the section. In interpreting the provision the exercise undertaken by the Court is to make explicit the intention of the legislature which enacted the legislation. In is not for the Court to reframe the legislation for the very good reason that the powers to `legislate have not been conferred on the Court." In short, the court cannot reframe the legislation for the simple reason it has no power to legislate. .(v) At the same time in Inco Europe Ltd., V. First Choice Distribution (a firm) (2000 (2) All ER 109), it was held that in discharging its interpretative function, the court can correct obvious drafting errors and so in suitable cases "the court will add words, or omit words or substitute words." But "before interpreting a statute in this way the Court must be abundantly sure of three matters: (1) the intended purpose of the statute or provision in question, (2) that by in¬advertence the draftsman and Parliament failed to give effect to that purpose in the pro¬vision in question; and (3) the substance of the provision Parliament would have made, although not necessarily the precise words Parliament would have used, had the error in the Bill been noticed." There are situations where addition of words is permissible and rejection of words. But these can be done only if the intention of the Legislature is clear and it is unskilled workmanship of the draftsman to introduce certain words in the Statute which has resulted in lack of clarity. 21. Let us see if the above three tests are satisfied. Rule 18 reads as follows: "18. The Bar Council of India shall cause a law college affiliated or sought to be affiliated to a University to be inspected by a Committee to be appointed by it for the purpose when: .a. An application for approval of affiliation of a new college is received by it or It suo motu decides in order to ensure that the standards of Legal Education laid down by it are being complied with. .a. The application for approval of affiliation of a new college shall be addressed to the Secretary, Bar Council of India, and shall be sent only through the Registrar of the University concerned with his recommendations and the application be accompanied by an inspection fee of Rs. 50,000/-. .a. The College and/or the University concerned shall furnish all the information to the Committee of inspection and the Bar Council of India as and when required, and shall co operate with them in every possible manner in the conduct of inspection. .d. (1) The Inspection team before recommending approval of affiliation to a new law college should, interalia, make a specific recommendation as to why such a law college is required at the same place/area where the law college is proposed to be started keeping in view the total number of existing Law Colleges in the place/area in particular and the state in general. 1. The inspection team will also keep in view the approximate population of the area where the College is proposed to be started, number of Law Colleges alongwith the total number of students therein, number of degree colleges as well as junior Colleges in the area in particular and the State in general. .e. If an unfavourable report is received, the Secretary of the Bar Council of India shall cause a copy of the same to be sent to the Registrar of the University concerned for his comments and explanations, if any. Such comments and explanations of the report shall be sent by the Registrar of the University within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the communication. .f. The Secretary of the Bar Council of India shall cause the report and the comments/explanation of Registrar of the University concerned to be placed before the next meeting of the Legal Education Commit-tee of the Bar Council of India. .f. The Secretary of the Bar Council of India shall cause the report and the comments/explanation of Registrar of the University concerned to be placed before the next meeting of the Legal Education Commit-tee of the Bar Council of India. .(g) If the Legal Education Committee is satisfied that the standards of Legal Education and/or the rules for affiliation or continuance of affiliation provided for in these rules by the Bar Council of India are not complied with and/or that the courses of study, teaching and/or examination are not such as to secure to persons under-going legal education, the knowledge and training requisite for the competent practice of law, the Legal Education Committee shall recommend to the Bar Council of India, the approval/disapproval of affiliation or continuance of affiliation as the case may be. The Legal Education Committee may also recommend that certain directions be given for improvements to be carried out within the period to be specified. .(h) This recommendation of the Legal Education Committee alongwith the accompanying papers shall be placed before the Bar Council of India for its decision. In case the Bar Council of India disagrees with or modifies the recommendation of the Legal Education Committee, it shall Communicate its views to the Legal Education Committee for its consideration before arriving at a final decision in the matter. .(i) If the Council is of the opinion that affiliation of a college whose affiliation has al¬ready been approved, be disapproved, the Council shall give notice of the proposed action to the Principal of the college and the Registrar of the University to show cause within 30 days of the receipt of the notice and the Council shall take into consideration, the reply received before making final orders. (j)The decision of the Bar Council of India shall be communicated to the Registrar of the University. It shall be effective from the commencement of the next academic year following the date on which it is received by the Registrar of the University. (j)The decision of the Bar Council of India shall be communicated to the Registrar of the University. It shall be effective from the commencement of the next academic year following the date on which it is received by the Registrar of the University. .(k) University Law Department/Constituent and affiliated law colleges to which the Bar Council of India has already accorded Approval of affiliation shall submit to the Bar Council of India an annual return in the form prescribed ( as per schedule IV ) by the Bar Council of India at the end of its annual academic session failing which the approval of affiliation accorded shall be liable to be withdrawn/cancelled. .(1) After refusal to grant permission to start a law college or to extend approval of affiliation to any existing law college, no fresh application for the same purpose shall be entertained until the expiry of the next academic session or one calendar year whichever is later from the date of such refusal by the Bar Council of India. .(2) Every law college, University, Deemed University & Department of law of any University and applying for approval of affiliation shall obtain permission / no objection for establishment of law college from Government of Higher Education Department of the State, if the same is a requirement under the prevailing law or any order in the State." 22. Rule 18 deals only with Law Colleges affiliated to a University. It does not refer to University, Deemed University or Department of Law anywhere else in the said Rule except in the Rule as amended. Even where Rule 18(c) refers to a University it is obviously the University to which the College is affiliated and not a University which seeks approval of affiliation. Therefore, Rule 18 is intended to govern an application made by the Law College for approval of affiliation. So in-tent is clear, and therefore, the words "approval of affiliation" cannot be deleted or "read out". 23. We next come to the second test. Is it by inadvertence that these words have been used? The purpose of the Rule itself is only with regard to Law Colleges which seek approval of affiliation, so the amended Rule will necessarily have to apply only in such cases. 23. We next come to the second test. Is it by inadvertence that these words have been used? The purpose of the Rule itself is only with regard to Law Colleges which seek approval of affiliation, so the amended Rule will necessarily have to apply only in such cases. It is clear that the Legislature intended to lay down these Rules to govern application for approval of affiliation, therefore, the words "approval of affiliation" are meant to be there. To read the Rule so as to make it apply even when there is no application for approval of affiliation or whether there cannot be an application for approval, would do violence to all guiding principles of interpretation of statutes. 24. Now we come to the third step. What is the substance of the provision the Parliament would have made not necessarily in the precise words had the error been noticed. The appellant contends that this rule is intended to be used when application is made for permission to establish a Law College. When the entire Rule is intended only to govern application for approval of affiliation of Law College, we cannot add or omit the words "approval of affiliation" to make it apply to University or Deemed University." 25. The Rule merely provides that if there is a law which includes such a requirement namely obtaining the permission or no objection for establishment of Law College then the same should be obtained. The Tamil Nadu Ambedkar Law University Act, 1996 and it provides for, "Section 2(e) "College" means a college or institution established or maintained by or affiliated to the University and providing any course of study or training, in law for admission to the examination, for degrees, diplomas or other academic distinction of the University" Section 2(p) "University" means the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. Powers and functions of University: Section 5 (v): The University shall have the powers .(i) ... .(ii) ... (iii) ... .(iv) ... Ambedkar Law University. Powers and functions of University: Section 5 (v): The University shall have the powers .(i) ... .(ii) ... (iii) ... .(iv) ... .(v) to affiliate Colleges to the University under the conditions prescribed and to withdraw such affiliation; Provided that, no college shall be affiliated to the University unless the permission of the Government to establish such college has been obtained and the terms and conditions, if any, of such permission has been complied with; Colleges not to be affiliated to any other University and recognition of college by University: Section 6 (1) No law college or institution imparting legal education within the University area shall be affiliated to any other University other than the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. (2) Any law college or institution imparting le-gal education affiliated to or associated with or maintained by any other University whether within the State of Tamil Nadu or outside the State of Tamil Nadu shall be recognised by the University for any purpose except with the prior approval of the government and the university concerned." Therefore, the permission of the Government is required in law, providing in the State, where colleges have to be affiliated under the Tamil Nadu Ambedkar Law University. Therefore, since a Deemed University or a University does not require affiliation, the power mentioned in Section 5(V) cannot be applied to University or Deemed University. 26. Next we come to Section 6. Section 6(2) is referred to in the impugned order. It deals with recognition by the Tamil Nadu Ambedkar Law University for any purpose only with the prior approval of the government and the university concerned, Section 6(2) will not apply to the respondent University since the words "if the same is a requirement" in Rule 18, can only mean if permission or no objection from the Government is a requirement for an application for approval of application. That is the only way this can be read and in any event, Section 6(2) deals with recognition by the University and prior approval of the Government. The Deemed University does not seek recognition by the University. It does not seek approval of affiliation. That is the only way this can be read and in any event, Section 6(2) deals with recognition by the University and prior approval of the Government. The Deemed University does not seek recognition by the University. It does not seek approval of affiliation. Amended rule will apply only in cases of application for approval of affiliation and since the respondents do not need to seek application for approval of affiliation the rule cannot apply to them and the Bar Council is bound to consider their application to start a Law College. 27. AIR 1999 SC 1167 (V Sudeer Vs. Bar Council of India), which was referred to and where the Rule providing for pre-enrolment training was quashed, the Supreme Court made these observations: 36. We hope and trust that at least now the Bar Council of India may do well to look into these suggestions as well as the observations made by us in the present judgment for salvaging the situation for the entire legal profession in India and for putting young entrants at the bar on right track so that after appropriate in-practice training which they get from senior advocates and their guides they can turn out to be efficient advocates for serving the suffering humanity having legal problems to be redressed through them and for helping the cause of justice more effectively." Recent incidents make us wonder whether the young entrants at the Bar are on the right track at all, and if so, what is the Bar Council going to do about it. 28. The learned Single Judge after dealing with the powers of the University Grants Commission and the Scheme of the University Grants Commission Act held as follows: "9. Going through the scheme of the UGC Act, it is apparent that the Commission will have the power to recommend to any University the measures necessary for reform and improvement of University education and to advice the University concerned about the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation. It will act as an expert body also to advice the Central Government on problems connected with co¬ordination of facilities and maintenance of standards in Universities. A combined reading of the above provisions shows that the Commission is the authority to determine the standards in education in respect of Deemed University when such University offers the law degree courses as well. A combined reading of the above provisions shows that the Commission is the authority to determine the standards in education in respect of Deemed University when such University offers the law degree courses as well. The provisions relating to the coordination and determination of standards, inspection, admission of students, appointment of teachers are all governed by the provisions of the UGC Act. These areas are occupied by the Central legislation enacted under Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bharathi Vidyapeeth case (supra) can be usefully referred to. Under Section 3 of the Act, deemed university status will be given to those institutions that for historical reasons or for any other circumstances are not universities and yet are doing work of a high standard in specialized academic field compared to a university and that granting of a university status would enable them to further contribute to the course of higher education which would mutually enrich the institution and the university system. Guidelines for considering proposals for declaring an institution as deemed to be university were also issued by UGC. Under the said guidelines aspects relating to admission were specifically entrusted with UGC and admission could be made only through a common entrance test on all-India basis. Such an exercise was intended to maintain a uniform standard and level of excellence. As we have pointed out, admission plays a crucial role in maintaining the high quality of education. And for the proper maintenance of academic excellence, as intended by the UGC Act, admission to deemed university have to be made under the control of UGC. This further goes to show that admission procedure to a deemed to be university is fully occupied by Entry 66 of List I and the State cannot exercise any powers over admission procedure. 10. ... The entire reading of the functions of the BCI shows that it may lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates; to lay down the procedure to be followed by its disciplinary committee and the disciplinary committee of each State Bar Council; to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates; to promote and support law reform; to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar Councils; to conduct seminars and organize talks on legal topics, etc. These functions relate only to lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette by advocate and exercise general supervision and control over State Bar Councils. Only in that context, the BCI has been empowered to recognize Universities whose degree in law will be a qualification for enrollment as an advocate (See AIR 1999 SC 1167 )." and while referring to Section 6 of the Act observed as follows: "This section also applies only to a law college or institution imparting legal education affiliated to or associated with or maintained by any other University other than Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University whether within the State of Tamil Nadu or outside the State of Tamil Nadu shall be recognised by the University for any purpose except with the prior approval of the Government and the University concerned. This section also does not apply to the University as such or the Deemed University and consequently mandates the approval of affiliation from the University and Page 0985 consequently for the purpose of approval from the State Government. In this regard, it must be kept in mind that when once an institution is declared to be a Deemed University, its activities must be regulated only under the provisions of the UGC Act. In view of the such provisions under the UGC Act, the Legislature thought it fit not to include the Universities or the Deemed Universities to be affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University and therefore, they have excluded the application of Section 6 relating to the affiliation to the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University by the Universities or Deemed Universities. The submission of the learned counsel for the BCI as to the application of Section 6 to the Deemed University as well is only liable to be rejected. When the provisions of the Act are interpreted, the plain and literal meaning alone should be preferred and if such interpretation is adopted, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Deemed University in regard to the non-application of the said section to the Deemed University must be accepted. It is not out of place to mention that even the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act does not either provide or insist an affiliation by the University or Deemed University and the BCI cannot even insist for recognition on a Deemed University for the purpose of approval. It is not out of place to mention that even the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act does not either provide or insist an affiliation by the University or Deemed University and the BCI cannot even insist for recognition on a Deemed University for the purpose of approval. Hence the submission of the learned counsel for the BCI in this regard is rejected." 29. The view of the learned Single Judge is the only possible view, if we read the Rules, the Act and the law laid down with regard to the status of the Deemed University. 30. The writ appeal is therefore, dismissed. No costs.