Inspection, Approval and Revocation
Chapter Twenty
Syllabus topic 1, "Objective of Legal Education"
Pages 74 to 77 of 543
In one line
The Rules are only worth what the inspection machinery is worth, and rules 18 to 27 are that machinery: who inspects, of how many kinds, what the report must contain, who considers it, and what happens when the answer is no.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: rule 18 provides for inspection of a university, rule 19 for the types of inspection, and rule 20 for the constitution of an inspection and monitoring committee of at least two members of the Bar Council of India; rule 22 requires the committee physically to inspect and to report in the prescribed form on infrastructure, curriculum design, the teaching and learning process, library and technical facilities and the feasibility of standard clinical education; rules 23 and 24 govern specific recommendations and adverse reports; rule 25 requires the Legal Education Committee's recommendation; and rules 26 and 27 govern approval and its revocation.
Rule 18 and rule 19: inspection and its kinds
Rule 18 provides for inspection of a university, which is the exercise of the Council's power under section 7(1)(i) of the Advocates Act to visit and inspect universities or to direct a State Bar Council to do so.
Rule 19 sets out the types of inspection, and the distinction matters because the purpose differs. An inspection of a newly proposed Centre asks whether it should be allowed to start; an inspection of an existing Centre asks whether it should be allowed to continue; and an inspection for accreditation, under rules 28 to 31, asks a more demanding question altogether.
A student should name the types rather than treat inspection as one thing, because a question about the regulation of legal education is often really a question about which inspection is being talked about.
Rule 20: the committee
Rule 20 requires the Bar Council of India to constitute one or more inspection and monitoring committees, each comprising at least two members of the Bar Council of India, to inspect newly established or existing universities.
Two members is the floor, and it is a low one. The whole apparatus of standards rests on a visit by two people, which is worth saying in an answer about whether the machinery is adequate to the number of colleges.
Rule 22: the inspection report
Rule 22 is the most detailed of these rules and the most useful to quote. The committee is to inspect the university, examine the documents and reports, and visit the institution to assess five things: the infrastructure, the curriculum design, the teaching and learning process, the library and technical facilities, and the feasibility of standard clinical education.
Note the fifth. The Rules make clinical education an object of inspection in its own right, which means a Centre with no clinic and no moot court room is failing something the inspector is required to look for. Chapter 520 uses this when it asks why clinical legal education has not worked.
Inspection, Approval and Revocation
Rule 22 also fixes who may sign. Members of the committee shall physically inspect the institution, and the report has to be signed by the members who inspected; a member who did not physically inspect may not sign the report, though they may appreciate the findings and record an opinion.
That provision is there for a reason. A report signed by somebody who did not visit is not an inspection report, and the Rule closes the gap expressly.
The Secretary then places the report before the Legal Education Committee immediately, for its decision.
Rules 23 and 24: recommendations and adverse reports
Rule 23 requires a specific recommendation. When recommending approval of affiliation to a NEW Centre, the committee must say specifically why such a Centre is required in the same area where it is proposed, in view of the total number of existing Centres in that area and in the State, and it must keep in view the approximate population of the area.
This is a genuine planning provision and students under-use it. It means the Rules do not treat a new law college as good in itself; the committee must justify another one in a place that may already have several.
Rule 24 governs an adverse report, and what follows it.
Rule 25 requires the Legal Education Committee's recommendation before the Council acts, so the decision passes through the body constituted for legal education rather than being taken administratively.
Rules 26 and 27: approval and revocation
Rule 26 governs approval, which is the permission rule 14 makes essential and without which a Centre may not impart legal education at all.
Rule 27 governs revocation of approval. Approval is not permanent. A Centre that ceases to meet the requirements can lose it, and the consequence for the institution is terminal.
The consequence for students is the difficulty. Revoking approval of a running college punishes the institution by harming the students, who chose it in reliance on the approval. That tension has no clean answer and is worth raising in an essay: the regulator's only serious sanction is one that falls on the people the regulation exists to protect.
A worked example
A Centre approved five years ago has lost four of its six full time teachers and has stopped running its clinic. A complaint reaches the Council.
An inspection is ordered under rules 18 and 19, of an existing Centre.
A committee of at least two members of the Council is constituted under rule 20, physically visits, and under rule 22 assesses infrastructure, curriculum design, the teaching and learning process, library and technical facilities and the feasibility of standard clinical education. The clinic's absence is not a peripheral finding; it is one of the five heads.
Inspection, Approval and Revocation
The report is signed by the members who visited, placed before the Legal Education Committee by the Secretary, and considered under rule 25.
If the report is adverse, rule 24 applies, and revocation under rule 27 is available. But two hundred students are enrolled, and the Committee must decide what to do about them.
That is the real shape of enforcement in legal education, and an answer that describes only the powers, without the dilemma, has described half of it.
Distinctions
| Approval, rules 26 and 27 | Accreditation, rules 28 to 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| What it decides | Whether the Centre may teach law at all | The quality grade of a Centre that already may |
| Standard | The minimum in the Rules and Schedule III | A higher and comparative standard |
| Consequence if absent | The Centre may not impart legal education, rule 14 | The Centre continues, ungraded |
| Who decides | The Council on the Legal Education Committee's recommendation, rule 25 | The Accreditation Committee, rule 29 |
Quick revision
Rule 18: inspection of a university, under section 7(1)(i) of the Advocates Act. Rule 19: the types of inspection. Rule 20: an inspection and monitoring committee of at least two members of the Bar Council of India.
Rule 22: the committee physically inspects and reports on infrastructure, curriculum design, the teaching and learning process, library and technical facilities, and the feasibility of standard clinical education; only members who inspected may sign; the Secretary places the report before the Legal Education Committee.
Rule 23: a specific recommendation is needed on why a new Centre is required in that area, given the existing Centres and the population. Rule 24: adverse reports. Rule 25: the Legal Education Committee's recommendation.
Rules 26 and 27: approval and its revocation. The sanction is terminal for the institution and falls on the students.
Test yourself
1. What five things must an inspection committee assess under rule 22? The infrastructure; the curriculum design; the teaching and learning process; the library and technical facilities; and the feasibility of standard clinical education.
2. Who may sign an inspection report, and why does the Rule say so? Only the members of the committee who physically inspected the institution; a member who did not inspect may record an opinion but may not sign. The Rule says so because a report signed by somebody who did not visit is not an inspection report at all.
Inspection, Approval and Revocation
3. What does rule 23 require when a new Centre is recommended, and what does that tell you about the Rules' view of new law colleges? It requires a specific recommendation on why a Centre is needed in that area, in view of the number of existing Centres in the area and the State and the approximate population. It shows that the Rules do not treat an additional law college as good in itself and contain a planning judgment.
4. State the dilemma in rule 27. The only serious sanction against a failing Centre is revocation of approval, but revoking the approval of a running college harms the enrolled students, who chose it in reliance on the approval, so the regulator's remedy falls on the people the regulation exists to protect.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.