Recently, the Bar Council of India has brought the law into picture for the law graduates to clear an entrance exam before getting into litigation after the attainment of the required degree. The idea has been well supported in the light of a reformatory step towards the litigation and practice area. The purpose behind the proposal has been to improve the quality of the litigants, and to filter the law practitioners before they could actually get on to the field.
However, the backside of the coin has remained untouched as of now. A plain reading to the idea gives a viable impression about the future of law and litigants. Legal reforms especially with regard to the quality of lawyers have been a dream yet to be achieved. This is due to old-existing legal educational system in India wherein obtaining legal education was thought to be nothing more than a mere degree. This lowered down the quality of legal education and produced the less-efficient lawyers as anyone with a law degree could go and practice law before the court. Hence, it is now the need of the hour to curb such practice and bring some reformatory changes in the present system. Therefore, the proposal was given a positive way.
But, at the same time a question is to be posed as to would an entrance exam after the completion of the degree not be violating the right to livelihood of the applicants? Would it not violate the right to carry on trade and profession of a law graduate, for whom, law-practice is the foremost area of profession?
It is appreciable that an idea has been generated to make feasible opportunities for those who make it to the entrance, but what about those who could not make it to the exam? Is it justified to restrain the law students from getting into a profession which they had obtained the degree solely for? Will it not result in gross violation of their right to practice a profession? At such point of time, for those who could not get through the entrance, the entire education and the degree would prove to be useless. Furthermore, it is to be noted down that law is an area wherein most of the law graduates take up litigation as their primary choice of profession. Rejection of a graduate as a law practitioner might leave them completely jobless.
If only the improvement in quality of the lawyers is something what is aimed at, then an improvement is to be made in the quality of the law students itself, which can be brought by introducing entrance exams at the time of the admission to the law schools or law colleges, but after the conferment of the law degree and then refusing a graduate from even making use of it is not just and reasonable. The entry at the undergraduate level itself could have sufficed. Why even admitting the students in a law college and then rejecting them as the law practitioners?
Also, no attempt is being made to support the non-existence of the entrance exam, what is suggested is an entry level exam at the time of the admissions itself, at least a ‘wannabe’ graduate would be able to realize his future legal potentials and prospects with regard to the profession before the admission which they would realize otherwise later on, when nothing can be done!!!