The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) Aadhaar-enabled biometric attendance system for students at Centers of Legal Education (CLEs) is “completely disconnected from reality” and will ultimately “make things worse”. students”.
On September 24, the BCI issued a circular introducing measures such as an Aadhaar-enabled biometric attendance system for students in CLE. The court recorded that such biometric presence “could seriously affect the students” and urged that “BCI should reconsider the same”.
A division bench of Justices Pratibha Singh and Amit Sharma is hearing a 2017 petition instituted by the institution and some faculty members after the suicide death of a student at Amity Law School in Delhi. Low attendance. In August this year, the bench had recommended reconsideration of compulsory attendance in undergraduate and postgraduate courses.
Later, the BCI formed a sub-committee comprising academicians and BCI members to conduct a “comparative study of attendance rules”. In a report submitted by a sub-committee of the BCI to the Delhi High Court on December 14, the BCI compared the mandatory attendance requirements set by various regulatory bodies including the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education. (AICTE), National Medical Council, and National Council of Teacher Education. The BCI noted that “among all academic authorities overseeing various courses, the Bar Council of India has the least stringent attendance requirements”.
The BCI added in its report that it is “very considerate of the mental and physical health of the students, other exceptional situations that may arise unexpectedly, as evidenced by the 70 percent attendance requirement with additional relaxations in the rules and consideration of various aspects. may arise through due process in personal or family life.”
The BCI, in its report, said it had implemented measures to address attendance issues at the CLE through a circular dated September 24 followed by a letter to the National Information Center on September 27.
“BCI has mandated that all CLEs install a biometric attendance system to monitor student attendance accurately and eliminate practices like proxy attendance. This measure is integral to maintaining careful attendance standards, which law students need to prepare for their professional roles. As a regulatory body, BCI is committed to ensuring that legal education institutions maintain standards of discipline and transparency. In its communication with NIC, BCI has sought assistance in implementing Aadhaar-enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) at CLEs.”
“By leveraging Aadhaar authentication, this collaboration aims to ensure real-time, accurate attendance tracking, which is aligned with BCI’s minimum 70% attendance requirement. Implementation of AEBAS brings significant benefits. It eliminates proxy attendance, instills discipline in students, and tampering -Ensures proof-of-concept, centralized attendance records,” the BCI report added.
The BCI report further states that non-compliance “jeopardises the eligibility of students for professional admissions, as their marksheets and degrees may be withheld and recognition by institutions that fail to implement AEBAS, There is a risk of losing recognition/approval.
However, the BCI’s approach was not in favor of the Division Bench. Justice Singh verbally remarked to the BCI counsel, “How are you going to implement biometrics, CCTV? … You are going to make it worse for students … (it) Totally disconnected from reality…in law colleges, imagine biometrics..or cctv…even in DU…you are going on a total collision course…what do students want, what do they want? Keep in mind. 70% of the (mandatory) attendance is not even considered. Go out in the corridor. The regulator (BCI) cannot be completely ignorant of what is happening on the ground… there must be some justification… this report is actually making it bad.”
Justice Singh further observed, “The baseline (mandatory attendance) cannot be 70%… for the first two years you can keep it high, after the third year it can be flexible.”
The BCI noted in its report that “relaxing or eliminating attendance requirements altogether could lead to negative consequences, such as a reduction in academic intensity, a decline in discipline, and a reduction in interaction with faculty” which in turn “could undermine the preparation and ability of graduates”. .
The BCI also relied on international legal education attendance requirements, noting that countries such as the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Singapore and Malaysia “implement these standards”.
The BCI, in its report, also said that enforcement of mandatory attendance criteria through penalties such as withdrawal from the examination or withholding of promotion to the next academic year is a “necessary and justified measure to ensure discipline, equity and quality in legal education”.
“These penalties, when judiciously enforced, act as a deterrent to absenteeism while promoting accountability and active participation among students,” the BCI said.
After perusing the BCI’s report, the division bench recorded in its order that “any attendance requirement which is unrealistic and excludes the examination is against the interest of the student”. It urged the BCI to consider various aspects such as “reducing the mandatory basic requirement”, “arranging attendance in respect of internships and other practical work done by law students”, “students should not be barred from taking the examination”. Exams that can cause great frustration for students and loss of academic years for students.”
The court will discuss this matter on January 31.
Why should you buy our membership?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be confused and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package