Bombay High Court: In the present petition, the petitioner, a 56-year-old law student challenged the college’s refusal to evaluate his Hindi-written answer sheet for the subject “Legal Language,” arguing that he had answered other papers in Hindi. The University alleged that English was the mandated medium of instruction for the course.
The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., while dismissing the petition held that when the medium of instruction was prescribed as English by the Bar Council of India, and the Circular specifically indicated that certain subjects, including Legal Language, were to be answered only in English, the Court did not find that the College had committed any mistake in refusing to evaluate the Petitioner’s answer sheet for the subject Legal Language.
Background:
The petitioner, who had previously worked in the private sector, decided to pursue legal education by enrolling in a three-year LLB course at Children Welfare Centre’s College of Law, affiliated with the University of Mumbai. He appeared for the State Common Entrance Test held on 24-09-2024, which was conducted in English and Marathi. Although he could barely understand Marathi, he attempted the test and secured admission for the academic year 2024—2025.
During the first semester examinations, he answered four subjects in Hindi and one subject, “Legal Language” partially in English and mostly in Hindi. Although he was restrained by the invigilator from answering “Legal Language” in Hindi, the college evaluated the other four Hindi-written papers and declared his results on 11-03-2025, in which he had scored fairly good marks.
The college was directed to produce the petitioner’s answer sheet for “Legal Language” in a sealed envelope and requested the Head of the Department of Law at the University of Mumbai to suggest a resolution. On 20-09-2025, the college presented the question paper and a photostat copy of the petitioner’s answer sheet. Upon examining the 20-page answer sheet, the Court found that while some portions were written in English, the Hindi responses were illegible. The Advocates assisting the Court also agreed that the answer sheet could not be properly assessed due to its illegibility.
The University submitted a communication from the Deputy Registrar along with Schedule I and II of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (‘Rules of 2008’), and a Circular dated 12-07-2004. The documents clarified that English is the prescribed medium of instruction for both the three-year and five-year law courses. Specifically, subjects such as Legal Writing, Legal Language, and General English must be answered only in English.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that it was obvious that the subject Legal Language had to be answered in English. The Court noted that the University, in its wisdom, along with the Rules of 2008 published by the Bar Council of India and adopted by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, warranted that the subject be answered in English, keeping in view several Latin maxims and doctrines that were part of the syllabus.
The Court was circumspect as to whether the said subject could have been answered in Hindi or the regional language Marathi. The Court observed that when the medium of instruction was prescribed as English by the Bar Council of India, and the Circular specifically indicated that certain subjects, including Legal Language, were to be answered only in English, the Court did not find that the College had committed any mistake in refusing to evaluate the Petitioner’s answer sheet for the subject Legal Language, particularly since the said answer sheet was not legible.
The Court did not find any reason that would outweigh the Rules of 2008 and the Circular. The Court further noted that the Rules of the Bar Council of India indicated that, besides English, students belonging to particular regions and States could write their answers in the regional language. For Maharashtra, the regional language was Marathi, thus, the Court could not persuade itself to accept the request of the petitioner. The petition was, therefore, dismissed.
[Akhil Kumar Jain v. Children Welfare Centre’s College of Law, Writ Petition No. 11757 of 2025, decided on 20-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Samiksha Kanani with Gayatri Naik
For the Respondent: Athira Nair i/b. Pooja Jain, Rui Rodrigues, Uday Warunjikar i/b. Yogendra Rajgore, P.P. Kakade, Addl.GP with Nisha Mehra, AGP
