 Good morning to everybody who is on the platform. I was given to understand that most of the gentlemen and ladies who are going to join on the platform, most of them are practicing Advocates. So I have kept that in mind in just sharing my views and thoughts on the basis of actual facts and the actual cases which have gone on recently in the Supreme Court. And two judgments have been delivered which has prompted me to share my views on this subject that is interpretation of conflicting regulatory laws. The issue which I want to address is that there are certain subjects and disciplines in the life of a couple of professions where the parliament has framed regulatory laws where they are required to register themselves as professionals and after they obtain their registrations, they are also required to be watched for their professional conduct. In that if there are allegations of committing professional misconduct then those statutory authorities as regulators under the regulatory laws are also empowered to take care of it and also impose punishments for those misconduct. Now couple of those such laws which immediately come to mind starting from the Advocates Act dealing with the advocates, going ahead with the doctors under the Indian Medical Council Act, dentists under the Dentistry Act, architects under the Architecture Act, nurses under the Nursing Act, pharmacists under the Pharmacy Act and the list goes on. On the one hand these are the laws which are stipulating that the professionals that is those who are willing to practice as professionals in these disciplines they must get registered first then they can practice that profession while they are carrying out their professional activities in whatever capacity they are under the watch of those regulatory bodies which are statutorily provided by acts of parliaments and they are also empowered to impose punishment for misconduct. Now if we proceed from this stage that is the law requires the registration of the professionals and also to watch their conduct we are required to go back a little in relation to those very special disciplines that if a body who is given the responsibility that you will register a professional for a special subject then the law invariably as a complete court also go back in that they will provide the course curricula they will decide what should be the basic knowledge of the gentleman or a person who wishes to qualify in that particular special discipline what should be his prior qualification for seeking admission to such professional courses there after what would be the eligibility and qualification of the people who are going to teach them what would be the basic minimum infrastructure which shall be required to impart such education for that special discipline there after what would be the standard of examination which should also test their whether test them whether they have been able to secure that education and qualification or not if they qualify and obtain a qualification which is recognized by that very body then they become entitled for registration in that discipline to practice as a professional for that subject after they start as professionals then their conduct is also subject to review by the disciplinary bodies under those enactments and the action is taken now if I put it in a different way that is a particular let us take the case of a person who wishes to practice as an advocate so the bar council of India under the advocates act is constituted as a statutory body as a regulator it will lay down that what would be the minimum qualification which a person must possess at what standard what division what marks by which he or she would be entitled to seek admission in the LLB course thereafter the bar council of India would also be settled with the responsibility of ensuring that where that legal education shall be imparted who shall impart that education what would be their qualification the next step in every such a special discipline then comes to is that what would be the course curriculum which would be required to be taught how many years course would that be whether it should be annual courses or by annual semesters what would be the level of examination and who would be the examiner whether it would be an internal exam or an external exam by the university and thereafter the qualification would be required to be recognized by that council and then you can after obtaining the qualification seek a registration let us take the case of dentist the medical counsellor similarly similar to all of the laws the eligibility conditions are laid down infrastructure requirements are laid down course curriculum is laid down the teacher eligibility conditions are laid down the examination standards are laid down and thereafter the institution who are able to meet their marks are given recognition the recognition is in relation to a particular admission capacity for giving admissions because the admission is relatable to the infrastructure which is provided on proportionate basis and then the registration takes place on obtaining the recognized qualification now in this background for last more than two decades a large number of cases read every court including Punjab and I court Bombay I court and Delhi I court various high courts after 1987 the reason for the disputes between three bodies specially I am naming that there were three bodies specially one was on the subject of architecture the second was on the subject of pharmacy and the dispute was with regard to all India council for technical education now all these three are regulators the architecture council is a regulator in the special discipline of architecture the pharmacy council is once again a statutory regulator who regulates the conduct of the education process on the special subject of pharmacy similarly all India council for technical education which became a statutory body in the year 1987 by a parliament made law became a regulator for the technical education the common understanding by a common man with regard to AICT which came into existence in the year 1987 was that it would relate it would relate itself to the courses of engineering the subject of engineering and it will restrict itself to discipline of engineering and to regulate it the problem arose that the AICT act having come later point of time that it was brought into existence in the year 1987 as compared to this law of 1987 the pharmacy act was of 1948 and the architecture act was of 1972 the pharmacy act and the architecture act they cover within their statutory regime not only imparting of those special courses but also for the registration of professionals under those law and also to watch their professional conduct after they are registered you would please examine and keep this in mind even from your general knowledge in our daily walk of life that in so far as engineers are concerned there is no registration of engineers with anybody in other words for practicing the profession of engineering as an engineer there is no requirement to register with any council like advocates like doctors like dentists like pharmacists there is no watch on them on their professional activities after they have obtained their qualification they can start to work as engineers on just acquiring their qualification without there being any requirement for registration with any professional body when this situation came after 1987 the problem started arising because of a very wide definition in section 2G of the AICT act which came into existence in 1987 of the nomenclature technical education so the definition in the AICT act of technical education included the subject of pharmacy and architecture within it in other words if somebody has to see what would be technical education for the purposes of AICT act by referring to the provision of section 2G there is no doubt at all that the subject of pharmacy and architecture was included into it the AICT being emboldened with the definition of technical education assumed and proceeded on that basis very very aggressively that since it is 1987 law which is again according to them is a special law on technical education it is later in point of time in the definition it includes the subject of pharmacy as well as architecture it will have all the jurisdiction to take care of every aspect of architecture as well as pharmacy council for which two special separate professional bodies were in existence and they were also created by the parliamentary laws the second aspect which came into existence was whether the principle of implied repeal this is a very important issue whether the principle of implied repeal would apply to the pharmacy act and the architecture act after a special law according to AICT that AICT is a special law after a special law on technical education was brought into existence in the year 1987 when the architecture council came into existence in 1972 and pharmacy council came into existence in the year 1948 the another issue which was engaged and was involved in understanding of this problem was that once the later law which is claimed to be a special law takes care of the subjects which are in existence in relation to two separate other special laws where the argument of implied repeal is raised it is always raised on the pedestal that when the parliament brought into existence the AICT act the parliament was fully conscious and aware that it was the author of the earlier two enactments and it still felt the necessity of providing another body and powering it to take care of the subject of architecture as well as pharmacy this argument was specifically raised by the AICT before the supreme court there are two judgments one judgment is both judgments are one is rendered the earlier judgment is rendered in 2019 and the subsequent judgment is recently rendered in March 2020 the 2019 judgment resolved the conflict of architecture act with the AICT and the 2020 judgment resolved the conflict of the pharmacy act with reference to AICT now what has happened was once the AICT assumed that because the subject of architecture and pharmacy is included within its definition and it has powers to frame its regulation to take care of all subjects which are included in its definition they proceeded to frame a large number of regulations as subordinate legislation for which they were empowered and framed various regulation both for the subject of architecture and for the subject of pharmacy the net result of their proceeding further assuming that they are also empowered to take care of these two subjects the problem with the disputes we started coming to court was if the pharmacy council on examination of infrastructure of a particular pharmacy college has approved a particular capacity of admissions in a particular pharmacy course suddenly the next day you will find that the AICT has now fixed a intake capacity which is double than the intake capacity fixed by the pharmacy council same thing was happening with regard to the architecture that if architecture council has fixed a capacity of intake of admissions in a particular architecture college as 50 per year the next day you somebody would find that AICT has fixed the infrastructure capacity of that college 200 the second dispute which had a reason was that whereas the architecture and pharmacy council were not at all ready to accept that of the same infrastructure same teaching faculty you cannot have two shifts because then you are doubling your intake capacity without doubling your infrastructure the AICT proceeded to give you double admission on the basis and the argument of that we are permitting them double shifts this was the difficulty in so far as the admissions were concerned the second problem which had a reason was with regard to the regulatory mechanism for laying down the requirement for infrastructure requirement for admission requirement for examination requirement of eligibility of teachers etc and since in the subject of architecture there were two bodies one is the architecture council fixing its own norm AICT taking over that we will power to fix our own norm so the conflicting regulations came into existence with conflicting and varying intake capacity varying infrastructure requirement, varying course content, varying examination standard, varying teacher the eligibility condition etc and the colleges both in the case of architecture as well as pharmacy naturally if their admission capacity is getting increased they all stood beside the architecture council of India sorry the AICT and started reaching course for protecting and continuing the admission capacity which had been fixed by AICT for them which was in all cases more than the admission capacity which had been fixed both by architecture council for architecture colleges and the pharmacy council for the pharmacy colleges the judgments which started coming in there were conflicting judgments there was a judgment in the case of pharmacy by the Punjab Rihana I court and a division man judgment of the Bombay I court whereas the Punjab I court held that the AICT would rule the Bombay I court held that no the AICT will not rule it is the special law in relation to architecture which will rule therefore these cases eventually the supreme court initially both the group of cases were listed together that is cases in relation to architecture colleges as well as the cases in relation to pharmacy council they were all listed together but somehow for some reason because various colleges were reaching some were asking for interim order so the cases got de-tagged and eventually the final hearing with regard to architecture case was taken up first a judgment was rendered thereafter the pharmacy council versus AICT the case was taken up in March and a separate judgment was rendered dealing with the specific intentions in the case of architecture because there was one basic difference between the architecture act and the pharmacy council act was that whereas there was a non-obstantive provision that was section 17 of the architecture act which provided for a non-obstantive provision in that act which similar provision was not available in the pharmacy act which gave ammunition to the AICT in the second round to raise a separate argument on that basis now coming back to these conflicts which had started in the court now let us see what was the legal issue involved the first issue which was raised before the supreme court was that whether the AICT on the subject of technical education is a special law or general because in so far as subject of architecture and subject of pharmacy was concerned it was not very difficult to argue that they are special subjects having a special law technical education one may argue is also a special law on technical education because education is a field can be a general field but when you start picking up specific special subject then the law which you deal with those special subject should also get the status of special law so therefore the question which arose was whether the architecture law where it would not be very difficult to say that it is a special law and AICT act if it is a general law then whether the architecture act will prevail or the AICT act will prevail and while deciding this issue the most important aspect was which law is in later point of time because that was the threshold argument both in both in the cases of architecture council as the pharmacy council raised by the AICT that we have been brought into existence in 1987 it cannot be said that the parliament was not conscious of the existence of the pharmacy act and the architecture act when the 1987 AICT act was brought into existence if there was no empowerment of the AICT on the subject of architecture and the pharmacy there was no need or occasion for the parliament to include the subject of architecture and the discipline of pharmacy in the definition of technical education now there is one more aspect that when I said that these are now regulatory laws and there is a conflict can there be a harmonization of these laws? can we protect both the laws that is architecture act and the pharmacy act on the one hand and AICT act on the other hand because that is the basic tool which the courts have used to save the law because one of the principle is that when the parliament brings into existence some law they are assumed to be valid and within the jurisdiction of the legislature they should be required to be protected given its meaning and also allowed to operate now if that is the basic fundamental discipline in the interpretation of the statutory regime then can it be said that AICT will have nothing to do with the pharmacy or architecture even when its definition includes it or pharmacy council and the architecture council will have exclusive jurisdiction on their respective subjects these were the areas which were required to be resolved by the supreme court now one aspect which I would request you to kindly observe and keep in mind that in so far as AICT is concerned as I pointed out in the beginning there is no provision for registration of either the architects or the pharmacists under the AICT act this is the basic one of the basic difference between the statutory scheme which was incorporated in the architecture act for the architects as well as the pharmacists for the pharmacy act the registration on obtaining a recognized qualification by an architect under the architecture act enabling him and entitling him to seek a registration and then his professional conduct there after under the eyes of the professional body same in the case of pharmacy is not in existence under the AICT act number two except for the definition of technical education in section 2G there is no other statutory provision dealing with architecture or pharmacy in any other substantive provision of the AICT act there is nothing the only thing was what the AICT developed was that this subject have been added into our jurisdiction we have been given the jurisdiction to frame subordinate legislation by framing regulation we have framed regulation in relation to infrastructure etc for both the disciplines of pharmacy and the architecture therefore whatever they take the character and status of a law we are as legal as pharmacy council or the architecture council when the matter is the Supreme Court so the Supreme Court said now we have to first of all examine the statutory schemes of the enactments of architecture as well as the pharmacy council on one hand and the AICT on the other they went into the statutory scheme provision by provision of both the enactments it was seen in those enactments of architecture as well as the pharmacy that every aspect is more or less dealt with by the substantive provisions of the enactment itself for an example what would be the eligibility what would be the requirement of registration what would be punishment or misconduct etc are all provided in the substantive provisions of the act including the fact that after a basic qualification which is a recognized qualification either in architecture or the pharmacy is secured by a candidate he gets registration under those two enactment whichever higher qualification he or she secured thereafter that also is required to be registered and entered against the name of the candidate for that also there are specific provisions indeed in those enactments the second aspect was what should the court do can it interpret by harmonious construction provisions of enactment which are covering the same field in a manner which virtually renders the working unworkable that is if one council says your admission would be 50 the next morning the new council will say your admission are 100 now please take the situation which arose before the supreme court that AICT has given a admission capacity of 100 for one college in architecture as against the admission capacity of 50 fixed by the architecture council similarly in the case of pharmacy 100 admission intake capacity given by AICT whereas 50 admissions are given by the pharmacy council what happens after those 100 admissions each in the architecture council on one hand and pharmacy council on the other hand when they approach after obtaining the qualification for registration the pharmacy council will say sorry sir the qualification which you have acquired I have not recognized it I have recognized it only for 50 you are 50 first to 100 candidate I can't give you registration AICT has no power to give registration there is no provision now where would that candidate go to practice as a professional so the principle of harmonious construction was creating a situation where the AICT act was becoming unworkable and was unnecessarily going to create a working problem in relation to carrying out of this theme of the architecture act as well as the pharmacy council act in this the only issue which came up was how do we decide this objection of later loss that the AICT act is in 1987 the both the enactments of architecture which is 1972 and pharmacy which is 1948 how do you get out of this so as to ensure that the pharmacy council carries on in activities where both pharmacy as well as the architecture are held to be complete code in their statutory scheme which also include registration and professional conduct after registration which is completely missing in the AICT act therefore what the court came to the conclusion both under the architecture act and the pharmacy council act was that if we go through very specifically in both the enact schemes of the enactments then they are so comprehensive in the special subjects of architecture as well as pharmacy now first of all what they decided was that pharmacy and the architecture are special disciplines and are special subject number one number two both in their specific enactments are comprehensive enough which deal with every aspect including from the eligibility condition to take admission in the professional course of architecture and pharmacy the course curriculum the eligibility conditions of teacher the examination standard etc etc and even in till the stage of watching your professional conduct after you have obtained the registration on the other hand AICT it came to life is only in its constitution gets a member from the pharmacy council one member comes from the pharmacy council now one member of the pharmacy council which goes into the constitution of AICT does not make it a professional body on the special subject of pharmacy similarly does not become a specialized body on the subject of architecture and it is extremely important that the professional conduct must be allowed to be a judge by the peers in the profession who also are practitioners you cannot say a clerk or a babu will decide whether the advocate has acted in a particular manner which is held to be ethical or correct or not it has to be left to the peers and the professionals of that very subject the pharmacy council and the architecture council on the other hand are constituted by experts in those very disciplines professionals who have got registration in those very disciplines they get elected and come to constitute the pharmacy council they are the peers in those two subjects now the only principle with the Supreme Court followed was that on these exhaustive examination of the schemes of the architecture act can be pharmacist act on the one hand and AICT act on the other it came to a categorical conclusion that the architecture act on the subject of architecture is a special law similarly pharmacy act on the subject of pharmacy is a special law AICT even when it deals with technical education is a general law for the purposes of architecture and pharmacy it is not a special law since it is not a special law which is AICT therefore it was later in point of time will not have any bearing and that therefore there will not be any acceptability to argument of implied repeal implied repeal of the architecture act and the pharmacy act in 1987 when the AICT act was brought in and one principle with the Supreme Court allied on an English judgment board the Vera Cruz principle where it was held that is a subsequent law refers to the subjects which are already covered by earlier special laws then you cannot apply the principle of implied repeal and the word used through a side wind there must be specific provisions regarding repeal of a special law on a special subject which may be prior in time this principle has been persistently followed by various benches of the Supreme Court now from 1964 onwards till today where they have held that whenever there is conflict between different kind of law where one is a special law even if special law is later in point of time sorry to bother you people are just posting the next principle harmonious construction principle they have understood the second principle what you have said they say just kindly revisit that and elaborate it the second principle you have said on the principles of harmonious construction then the second principle non coming exactly on that non harmonious construction what we understand is that whenever there is a perceived or seeming to be the conflict between two legislations or two provisions of different legislation then please make them work please make their working possible in such a manner that they are not held retentions these are two cases and please mind it I am going to stress on it where the Supreme Court says specifically that a situation has come into existence on the principle of applicability of the unworkability concepts that if you allow two statutory bodies on the same discipline it will only create havoc in the practical ground realities it will not be workable so in the name of harmonious construction when the argument is raised the Supreme Court said that the harmonious construction would only in this manner that AICT act will remain in existence the architecture council act will remain in existence the pharmacy council act will remain in existence but in so far as definition of technical education is concerned in section 2G of the AICT act the Supreme Court said the nomenclature of architecture as well as pharmacy will deserve to be treated as deleted from the definition of technical education they have said so in so many words and I must tell you one thing that in 2018 against certain interim orders which were passed by certain I courts in the case for permitting the higher intake in various architecture and pharmacy colleges which were fixed by AICT interim orders were challenged and they were brought before the Supreme Court one of the bench while disposing of the SLP against the interim orders in relation to pharmacy made a very specific observation that a time has come where the legislature must revisit on the definition of technical education and consider dropping the word pharmacy from the definition of 2G this SLP against an interim order was disposed of by one paragraph thereafter the matter was placed before the concerned two ministries because the pharmacy council was under the health ministry and the AICT is under the ministry of human resources development after the Supreme Court made this observation the matter was brought to a committee meeting which included both these honorable ministers they said and in principle they accepted that the Supreme Court observation should be respected and having regard to the number of disputes which have arisen and have come to the courts in relation to working of AICT and the pharmacy and the architecture the disputes which have come into existence have actually created a situation where the parliament must revisit and in principle the government of India decided that the subject of architecture as well as the subject of pharmacy will be in principle excluded and deleted from the definition of technical education in the AICT Act this order I said was passed in 2018 a meeting was held and this in principle decision was put in the minutes in the pending during the interim till the time the parliament eventually amends the law it was also decided that the pharmacy council and the AICT council they will work together they will work together in carrying out their activities and will get separated only after the amendment is carried out this fact was also played before the Supreme Court when the pharmacy council matter was before it the architecture council matter was decided and it was held that we are now holding in the name rejecting the argument of harmonious construction that this subject of architecture will be deleted from the definition of the technical education when the pharmacy council matter came in the Supreme Court specifically requested the central government to respond to them that you had taken their decision in 2018 that you will delete it why the amendment has not taken place so the Supreme Court was informed by the central government that the process is on for variety of reason the amendment has not been achieved but it is likely to be achieved very soon and the resolve of the government that they would be deleted from the definition the Supreme Court took it on the court and they said we can't wait till the time the amendment is made they followed the earlier judgment of architecture and recorded the statement made on behalf of the central government and proceeded to hold the same thing that the word of pharmacy will also be treated as deleted from the definition of technical education in the AICT act and then also they held that all those pharmacy colleges where the additional intake had been permitted by the AICT over and above the intake which had been permitted by the pharmacy council and similarly the architecture council all those colleges will go back to the respective council and will invite them to refix their intake capacity for the future years however the students who had stood admitted and undergone and completed their courses it has been directed by the Supreme Court that the respective council that is architecture as well as the pharmacy even when the students had been admitted beyond the capacities fixed by them but that fixation was also by another statutory body namely AICT those council are well advised to grant them registration so that they can practice their profession so the crusts of the entire thing came out to be that it is not necessary that these seeming to be a special law which is later in point of time should be assumed to have displaced the earlier special laws number one number two the harmonious suction may also invite a situation where the act is saved but the definition clause is denuded of a particular subject which is otherwise covered by a special law so these are the two conclusions which have come from these two judgments of the Supreme Court which Vera Cruz is the judgment of that English principle which is also dealt with in detail by the Supreme Court and if you permit me I just wish to read Para 71 of the judgment in the case of Pharmacy Council of India versus Dr. S. K. Torsniwala Education Trust which is 2020 SCC online Supreme Court 296 I'll just read one paragraph for the benefit of all of us in the case of Harishankar Jain the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the maximum generally especially of us non-derogant the relevant portion of paragraph 8 and 9 are rather than that the maximum generally especially was non-derogant is quite well known the rule flowing from the maximum has been explained in Mary Seward and owner of Vera Cruz which was judgment delivered in 1894 now this is a relevant portion which I wish to invite your attention we have already chaired it on the screen for your just convenience the team has already posted it I really see this portion which is just about paragraph 9 in 14.2 just come to paragraph 8 Mary Seward and owner of Vera Cruz I want to please invite your attention to the next four lines now if anything be certain if you have got it I just want to read this four lines yes sir it's already being displayed yes sir now if anything be certain it is this that where there are general words in a later act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subject specially dealt with by earlier legislation you are not to hold that earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed altered or derogated from merely by force of such general words without any indication of a particular intention to do so now let me just take two minutes on this that architecture and pharmacy council are special enactments they cover in exhaustive nature two special subjects of pharmacy as well as architecture the word pharmacy and architecture as general words only in the definition of a subsequent act without there being a specific word for repeal of earlier special law then there is no repeal of earlier special law the principle of generally especially was non-derogant will not apply there will not be any implied review these are the four lines this is that Vera Cruz principle which has been applied and now we are having a situation where the subject of pharmacy shall be regulated only by the pharmacy council the subject of architecture shall be regulated only by the architecture council there is no implied appeal of these two enactments the jurisdiction of the AICT there is no jurisdiction in fact in relation to pharmacy council they gave various proposals to AICT they said alright what you do is supreme court they gave proposal kindly permit pharmacy council only to conduct diploma courses don't permit them air courses then they said alright the institution fixation of intake you give it to us course content they can lay down professional conduct they can watch we will not do it so they gave various proposals of distributing certain aspects in relation to these special subjects and eventually the supreme court said sorry we would not be doing a good thing a correct thing by permitting two specialized body on the same subject which will only create a confusion and on the basis of the number of litigation which I agreed them they came to the conclusion that harmonious construction in a manner by distribution certain aspects for the specialized council certain aspect for the AICT they rejected they rejected the argument of implied repeal totally and they came to the conclusion that the harmonious construction principle would not apply and the subjects of architecture and pharmacy in the definition provision of section 2g of the AICT act it shall be deemed to be deleted from that provision because the moment you delete these two subjects the entire dispute disappear because AICT will continue to govern the engineering colleges the pharmacy colleges etc for profession of pharmacy will be regulated by the pharmacy council who will have its own peers similarly in the case of architecture so this is how the supreme court has resolved these conflict between three regulatory body and having three special subjects questions sir if any question is there yes sir I will just share the board how we go about we don't unmute anybody who wants to ask the question they will post it on the chat box so they will post the question I will read it for your convenience if everything is decided by BCI regarding the law education in the country from admission process to the court structure to be registration etc then why there is a need of all India bar examination all India bar examination also by the bar council of India there is a screening examination even in the cases of doctor there is also a program of continuing medical education because these are those subjects where the advancements and growth is at a very fast pace one cannot say sir I have acquired the basic qualification and that is enough for all the time to come for the doctor there is a continuing medical education CME program which are continuously run in fact their registration are now on five year basis after every five years they have to qualify in their continuing medical education and then their registration will be renewed so only to clarify sir you have asked a very relevant question that why bar council of India is conducting these examination this examination is being conducted by the bar council of India it is under the regulation that they are famed as titularly and it is somehow that even if you are coming from various colleges we just want to doubly ensure that before you are allowed to practice as a professional you demonstrate though you are absolutely right sir because this argument was also raised before the Supreme Court in a constitution bank in Preeti Sirvaswar matter in the year 1999 a person who finishes his MBBS who finishes his MBBS where he passes 50% then why should he be put to another test again for admission in postgraduate course here also the bar council of India says I want to make it doubly sure that once a person is allowed to join the bar to practice as a professional I want to doubly sure including their qualifying exam besides their qualifying exam I want to make it doubly sure but yes it is always open to challenge what is the difference between what is open to challenge what is the difference between technical and accounting background can one exam for any post determine a background where in law can we find their exact definitions the accounts and technical education what is the difference between technical and accounting background can one exam for any post determine a background where in law can we find their exact definitions they know side definition of any background what are the special discipline under those very enactment the eligibility conditions are laid down for seeking admission to those professional courses they are laid down in those very laws they are not separately laid down if supposing I have to get admission in the LLB degree course the regulations are made by the bar council of India the minimum eligibility condition that you must have 45% marks in your school or in your graduation is laid down by the bar council of India it is under the advocate's act the regulations which are framed under the advocate's act similarly for getting admission in the MBBS or dentistry the eligibility conditions are laid down through regulation under those very respective enactments there are no separate provisions which I am aware of I am only aware of the provision that wherever these special subjects are provided the admission to those special subjects and eligibility conditions are laid down under those very enactments Mr. Pratik Gupta asks yes sir meanwhile I will ask has the time come considering the number of engineers and management graduates in the country that the same type of examination be there and registration also process the same perhaps they are right today what I see is let us take the case of construction infrastructure development projects where engineers work hand in hand with the architects I do not know what is the reason that architecture's activities are subject to their professional conduct being watched by a body whereas there is no such body in the case of engineers I do not know maybe my learned friend is right that the situation and necessity has come in fact there are so many engineering colleges that a large number of colleges have closed down because they are not the takers of a division the demand for engineering seats has gone down so badly which has forced a large number of colleges to close but yes my friend is right that in so far as AICT Act which is the only act dealing with the profession of engineering there is no requirement of registration there is no body which looks after your professional conduct Off the cuff I will just say in a lighter way just to break the session it is said once a student goes to an engineering college he asks the chalky-dar how is this engineering college then the chalky-dar says this is a very fantastic engineering college I have also studied from here Prateek Gupta asks has the time come for the legislature to revisit the AICT Act 1987 by either diluting it in line with the Supreme Court judgment especially considering the huge amount of litigation being generated now the answer to that is recorded in the Supreme Court judgment that the government has already informed the Supreme Court that they have taken a decision in principle that both the words of pharmacy as well as architecture will be dropped from the definition of technical education in the AICT Act so the amendment is only going to be formal now given that the Supreme Court has held this with regard to the architecture and pharmacy would not an exam like AOR exam which is run by the Supreme Court itself be defeating its own words should it not be transferred to the BCI? should it not be transferred to? the BCI I will tell you something the advocate of the court examination is not only the procedures alone it is the trust of the Supreme Court in those advocates who qualify that because you please appreciate I will just take one more minute in the AICOT procedures I have worked for a very long time in the AICOT I have been in the experience of various other AICOTs and very privileged to even come regularly to Chandigarh that never ever never ever there is no procedure which I have seen in any AICOT of the court passing an order only on mentioning when the matter is not before it I hope I am making myself clear yes yes at the most the court will say alright you file an application let the matter come before us there has to be some listing whereas in the Supreme Court on the mentioning of AOR anything can be done without their matter being before the Supreme Court so there is a huge element of trust which is created through this examination of advocate on the court it is not that the advocate on the court suddenly become some great advocate by passing the examination what I was stating was that in the Supreme Court a lawyer not only gets exposed to the procedures which are being followed in Supreme Court he also builds up a trust with the bench that is his oral submission will be taken as granted whether it is used or misused is a separate issue but as a concept as the rational behind it the passing of the examination is given to the these retained by the Supreme Court itself now what I was saying was that I have done my LLB I have also qualified in the examination needed for my permanent registration now there is an initial registration then you qualify the examination in two years conducted by the Bar Council of India and then you get your permanent enrollment now if these two are done by every advocate there is no harm or any drawback in the Supreme Court retaining that facility of the conduct of advocate on record examination which in my understanding in addition to the exposure to the procedure which are followed at the Supreme Court is also participation in the trust building with the bench the court may be more comfortable to accept the word of an advocate on record then a person though there the difference is like the this entire distinction is slowly and slowly getting marginalized it's getting reduced because there are now so many lawyer who are not advocate on record but are regularly practicing there but there is a rational which had been kept there and there would not be any I am supposing it is given to the Bar Council of India how will that trust situation which is because one year training is needed at the Supreme Court so if the Supreme Court conducts an examination and the Supreme Court examinations are conducted by a team which primarily includes senior advocates who are regularly practicing there they and the examination team of the Supreme Court they undertake they frame the question paper they conduct the examination they check the answer sheets and then give the result so the judgements which you have referred has the Supreme Court given at any time bound directions to the Supreme to the government to frame these regulations the basic principle is that the court cannot direct the legislature to frame a law or not to frame a law or frame a law in a particular period so they have recorded there the representation which is made on behalf of the central government is that the government in principle has decided that these two words shall be dropped from the definition of the technical education one question by Mr. Rangat is that Mr. Gugoi had stated that the purpose of five year law is being frustrated because the intent was to encourage the news entrance to join the litigation what changes would you suggest for legal education to be a more extensive experience if you ask me I would still prefer three plus three three year graduation followed by three year graduation of law what I did given that the Supreme Court held that with regard to the architect and pharmacies would not would not an exam like you are which is run by Supreme no that has been handled by you can we know what is in if there are no specific regulations by AICT whether UGC regulations are applicable for the technical institutions that question would only become academic because UGC act is also being repealed so there are body 53 of a subject which are getting covered by another law which is in pipeline it already a statement has come that the UGC act is to be repealed what are your thoughts about a similar registration process for engineering like lawyers considering how majority of the engineers are unemployed in the industry the unemployment would not have anything to do with registration registration first of all signifies that you hold a recognized qualification in that subject because unless you hold a recognized qualification you will not get registered that is number one number two your professional conduct would be subject to review by those professional bodies that has nothing to do with the employment that just because yeah it's fine I'm sorry no no go ahead please go ahead Agastash Shilat asked given that the Supreme Court has held that this with regard to the Jyotlali asked what will be the solution if there is a conflict in the regulations of the AICT and state technical board the AICT will prevail because it is a parliament made law entry 66 of list one will apply okay Sunshit Goyal asked currently there is a debate that all entrance exams be done by one single authority national testing agency what is your take on this absolutely perfect that is why the body is created the central government has created the body to achieve this objective and what is your take Aditi Gupta asked what is your take that the entire purpose of the AOR examination has been frustrated and in practice AORs only act as a rubber stamp since the purpose was to filter out frivolous cases and reduce unnecessary burden on the app export the aberrations never prove the rule these aberrations are there in every walk of life but there are advocate or record who are regular practitioners who follow their ethics and they are the best lawyer who practice in doing so if there are certain certain element of abuse that would not show that the concept of AOR is not a relevant or a valid concept Ravi Raj asked after doing the three year graduation where children come from different backgrounds which has very less use in three years LLB course will there not be any five year court law in fact answers what you have answered already absolutely right see one more thing we must keep in mind that the profession of law subject is always the professional is always benefited if the professional is a habit of reading other subjects because the process of giving logic and rational by examples for making every judge understand like a layman if you have knowledge of other subjects you are more efficient in court you are more better placed in court you have more persuasive power and persuasive skills so it is not ever disadvantageous to not to be well read in other subjects in addition to law on the other hand it is always advantageous so if I have done a graduation in some other subject of three years and my graduation of three years of law it is not that my earlier education has gone away as they say in a lighter way wherever it is studying cycling swimming whatever you learn it continues to exist always help it will never go waste it will be used to some point or the other what is your take on this thing that UGC proposes something and state does not adopt those recommendations what is your take whether it will be binding or not it will be see every law has a very important element of its enforceability if there is no enforceability there can't be any law law can't be left meaningless and ineffective please see there are various methods of enforcement of law and enforcement of judgement it can be execution, it can be contempt, it can be filing of repetition it can be other punishment which can be given supposing the state any particular state authority doesn't follow the law made by the parliament then they get the person who acquire the qualification he will get disadvantage in registration by the central body now take the case of drug law the drug act in the drug act a medicine has to be given by a pharmacist who registered with the pharmacy council so you get deprived that itself become an enforceability because otherwise you will face punishment of even prosecution will the AECT have more power over a special act passed by state legislature for example state law for architecture state law for architecture will disappear the moment parliament makes the law any law which is made by the state which is in conflict will get hit by the principle of repugnancy and will disappear so I don't think we have any questions in our format just like we had discussed what is your take, what a young lawyer or any other lawyer should do to perform, make his mark research law, drafting etc etc because from your vast knowledge you and your wife both being gold medallist as an academician as well as a lawyer you would like to have a take how one can do academically well and thereafter perform invariably they say gold medallist don't perform well but you are rare abrasion who are doing exceptionally well I will tell you what I have been able to learn is that there are certain elements which you can never feel agreed against the almighty who has given you or you have not given you the brilliance or intellect is the is the confirmant by the almighty somebody may remain beneficial with him he will say that he has forgotten something like that something of that kind but anything with the god has not given you or has not given you much the intellect, the brilliance one thing which I have learnt very clearly is that to some extent of that deprivation you can make it up by your artwork there is no substitute for it but what is your final take how do you want that the lawyer should go about how they should perform, how do they should research how do you say drafting when the young client when the client comes to the lawyer or he should go about it he should work hard if supposing I get a new case my endeavour should be first of all I must abreast myself with the law which is involved in that problem I must also go before I even draft to go into the latest judgments on that subject because the moment I see the legal provision and the judgments which are up to date with a clear view what should be the draft which I have to prepare what is the ground which I have to take what is the prayer which would be available to me ask for the moon, never feel shy and then go ahead work hard and pang it I will leave the rest I was reading somewhere it said that law is what the judge decides on that particular day exactly exactly all presidents going to down the water if the judge decides it the other way exactly sir Aditi Gupta asks advocates registered with the Maharashtra bar council with 7 years of practice are automatically eligible what is the reason and logic behind that see please appreciate that the centralized laws have come into existence after the constitution was adopted in certain disciplines the laws have come much later for an example the Indian medical council act and the dentist act they require the centralized council as well as council at the state levels now Haryana after it became got out of the unified Punjab and became a separate state in 1966 for a very long time it did not have its own state medical council so the initial registration is with the state council so the people who used to get MBBS degrees in Haryana they would get registered either in Punjab or would get registered in Delhi because there was no state council so you can't create an ITAS so there are laws which have come after the constitution having been adopted so whichever state laws which were applicable earlier now please see your society registration before the constitution was adopted was Tamil Nadu society registration act because that state had framed its own law prior to the constitution and even the BCCI is registered with the Tamil Nadu society registrar so there are certain state laws which had been framed in those states they worked out those mechanisms and when the parliament made laws centrally they kept in mind those statutory provisions and the schemes and the laws which are made by the state and the people who had got benefits and the registration under that they must be protected and continued this is article 372 about the constitution whatever laws were made earlier unless they have been repealed they will continue to remain in feet so the Maharashtra state council has given an enrolment which is recognized by the centralised act so it is only as a recognition why those people should be deprived we are taking, we are breaching the rules for a senior council of our high court Mr Singh wants to ask a question directly though in the half format we don't allow but Mr Singh is so respected in the bath that I am asking him to put the question directly please sir I am not asking any question good morning this is IP Singh sir from this platform I just want to thank you and to bring it to the daughters of all our members that I happened to be a council against you in the DRT matter in the Supreme Court and you were straight forward enough to support the cause of the advocates you came forward and directed the ministry to meet the demand of the bar association the DRT so I must thank you for that because of your advice the ministry had gone to the extent of providing the premises to the DRT and other facilities this is only this thing I want to brought what happened to those two top floors which were required to be done the floor has, that has been taken and the second the two lifts have been installed very good this was one of my cases which I did as an ASG additional solicitor Janara was appearing for the ministry of finance and the officers as usual were not helpful but I told them that if you don't behave then I will go because Viradri is the answer sir being the name debt recovery tribunal itself is enough the lawyers at Chandigarh are already dedicated for that action of yours we are all obliged on that sir, no it was a common cause sir, I have never felt by your time being granted no I mean we were on the DRT part where Mr Singh was expressing no no that's why he kind of him to remember me and in any case I would have done it even when I was not a lawyer I would have otherwise done it because it was a basic infrastructure facility which was needed once you were creating a court there you must build infrastructure for it it was I think building which was re-entered and then they were very conducive in giving all the flows definitely the same question which of Maharashtra bar is the question is isn't it discriminatory that you are allowing Maharashtra but not other people, what is your take there shouldn't be any amendment on that no please that's what I am trying to say once the central law takes over everybody is governed by that law once the central law takes over the earlier before partition, before 1950, before the constitutional adopted various laws were there in the state framed by the competent state legislature the parliamentary laws were not there once the parliamentary law comes into existence it uniformly governs everybody recognising the rights of some people who had been regulated by the law which were valid and came into existence prior to the constitution so therefore there is no question of discrimination and there is no question of permissibility of giving that particular state to any other state because that is no more needed central law has taken over should it not be better for professional conduct is checked by an independent agency as sometimes there is a professional bias also against within the same please tell me please tell me a certified copy of a judgement against which an appeal is to be filed is unfortunately tied up in a separate file in a busy lawyer's office which goes into the rack where thousands of files are there and the delay takes place in filing the appeal can you send it to a bureaucrat to decide or will you send it to an advocate to decide because the bureaucrats say are you mad how can it get tied to another file but in my office it used to happen every day that there are 20,000 Tharkari files are lying one file, one paper unfortunately gets hacked in another file and that file goes to the rack and I can't keep the rack checked up every day for thousands of files it only comes out when that other file is taken out only then you realize oh my god the certified copy was lying here now you give it to a bureaucrat what will you do or you give it to a doctor what will you do a lawyer would know yes it happens it can happen one half a day right sir could you explain the doctrine of implied appeal in more broader perspective sir implied it the general law earlier and a special law comes later then even if the special law does not talk about the applicability of the earlier existing general law the principle of implied appeal may become applicable but the insistence generally most of the judgment says that whenever it is a prior special law followed by a general law which is later in point of time please do not invoke the principle of implied appeal because the special law cannot be repealed by a perception it must be repealed if it is required to by the specific words of the parliament sir it's a question in Norman we often discuss though it's not directly pertinent with the situation our take is that why do we have different like let's assume certain acts have 30 days of limitation some 90 to remove that confusion why not make it 19 days flat what is your take on that so that no lawyer knows that it is straight away 90 days rather than 30 days, 60 days, 90 days so there are various factors which are taken into account when those laws are framed please appreciate just because two views are possible the one view can't be held to be bad that's for sure sir I don't think that we are having any questions could I ask Manmeet to slightly come on the board because she's the director and producing large number of perspective today she's a facilitator facilitator the all good movies are come to a good show only once there is a good director so Manmeet was acting as a good director and true to her name she's actually wanting a man of everybody so I would like just a few words from Manmeet how she's finding because I read it somewhere that she's interested to the law I am not very sure that she has actually joined I am interested in 3 plus 3, Colonel Bala is sitting there I can see him he is aware, Colonel Bala is one example who we have learned so much from him Colonel Bala was in the forge as a judge advocate in the branch I know him from 1988 when I joined the bar and from that day I have benefited so much from him I have learned so much from him and fortunately today he is a practicing senior advocate designated by the Supreme God and wherever there is any army, navy or air force case the Supreme God judges would call him by name please call Bala, he is known as Colonel Bala but Bala in any case is God that's true so from on behalf of before we thank you sir we would like to thank the director of the entire show Manmeet should come back to the screen a few words from Manmeet how is that experience on this platform because we are actually thankful to you without you maybe though we know that Mr. Manindas Singh is as good as Manindas Singh Bala he can bowl on any pitch any time will always be successful what is your take on this session? it was very informative in fact I did some research for him yesterday so it was very very informative implied repeal where our cruise principle I was also taking notes sitting right here because whenever he teaches me I always take notes so it's a very good initiative I think and I think there is a lot of good that can come even after coronavirus ends probably this system of conducting seminar on web called webinars can continue with the most personalized touch so it's great so actually after this entire show when Manmeet has put in so much inputs I have actually realized that the saying is aptly put in here behind every successful man there has to be woman woman need not be a wife it can be a daughter also that's true I would not have been able to do so much if she was not there no that is true you are equal to 11 sir thank you on behalf of all the team beyond law CLC we would like we would love that you should come on this platform again words cannot express the way you have given the insight knowledge of the entire show the entire judgments brought to a landscape where we would all cherish just like a painting thank you sir we would love to carry on carry on sir keep it up kindly improve make it more often the frequency can be increased and we can and I get benefited so much we all get benefited by this exchange and interact thank you so before we part we again take a promise we part to meet again thank you sir absolutely thank you very much