Criminal background checks: Over 500 lawyers write to BCI, to roll back 'controversial’ notification

Hyderabad: Over 500 lawyers, law students, law teachers, and concerned citizens from across India have written an open letter to the Bar Council of India (BCI), urging the immediate withdrawal of its recent notification.

Issued on September 24, 2024, the notification mandates the implementation of a criminal background check system, biometric attendance, employment declarations, and the installation of CCTV cameras in law colleges across the country.

The letter asserts that these measures are unconstitutional, impractical, and infringe upon the rights of law students.

Criticism of Criminal Background Checks

The signatories have strongly criticized the BCI’s requirement for law students to declare any ongoing criminal cases, including FIRs or convictions before they can receive their marksheets or degrees. The letter questions why law students are being singled out for such scrutiny when no similar requirements exist for students in other disciplines.

“Is there a law of the land that prohibits someone named in an FIR or even a convict from pursuing education? Under what authority can the BCI withhold marks sheets or degrees for not declaring criminal antecedents?” the letter states.

The group emphasized that such a drastic measure should not be imposed without backing from a law passed by Parliament. Privacy Concerns Over Biometric Attendance and CCTV Cameras.

The letter also raises concerns over the BCI’s directions for biometric attendance and CCTV surveillance in classrooms, calling it a violation of the right to privacy established in the landmark Puttaswamy judgment. “Is the problem of low attendance or proxy attendance so rampant that it justifies such a grave infringement of privacy?” the signatories ask. The letter argues that the BCI has provided no evidence to support the need for these measures and that no discussion was held on less intrusive alternatives.

Impact on Economically Disadvantaged Students

Another point of contention is the BCI’s requirement that students declare they are not pursuing any other degree or employment. While the signatories acknowledge that this may be aimed at ensuring commitment to education, they argue that it disproportionately affects students from poor backgrounds who may need to work part-time to support their education.

“No student must be penalized for being poor and for trying to acquire education through sheer grit and struggle,” the letter emphasizes, adding that as long as students meet attendance requirements and pass their exams, they should not be denied their degrees for working while studying.

Lack of Justification and Public Consultation

Throughout the letter, the signatories repeatedly highlight the lack of transparency in the notification process, criticizing the BCI for not holding public consultations or providing sufficient justification for the measures introduced.

“If the legal profession demands the highest standards of ethics, integrity, and accountability, then the BCI should first hold itself to these standards,” the letter asserts.

Call for Immediate Action

The open letter concludes by calling on the BCI to immediately withdraw the notification and engage in public consultations to develop more practical and legal rules that address real issues faced by law students. “This notification is seriously flawed, unconstitutional, and cannot be sustained. The BCI must focus on addressing real problems, not imposing arbitrary rules on students,” the letter concludes.

Summary of the Letter’s Key Points:

• Criminal Background Checks: Singling out law students for criminal background checks is unjustified and unconstitutional.

• Biometric Attendance and CCTV Cameras: These measures violate privacy rights without clear justification or evidence of necessity.

• Student Employment: Requiring declarations about employment or simultaneous degrees disproportionately harms economically disadvantaged students.

• Lack of Transparency: The BCI failed to hold public consultations or provide adequate reasoning for these measures.

The letter, signed by more than 500 individuals, serves as a significant pushback against the Bar Council of India’s notification and calls for reconsideration through a democratic and consultative process.