DIVYA VIKRAM

According to Sec 26 of CrPC, 1973, Offences under the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter the “CrPC”) are divided into:

1. Offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC) ( triable by HC, Sessions Court and other court shown in the 1st Schedule to the CrPC)

2. Offences under any other law (empowers HC, when no court is mentioned for any offence under any law other than IPC, to try such offences)

S482 deals with Inherent powers of the Court. It is under the 37th Chapter of the Code titled “Miscellaneous”.

Sec 482 CrPC reads as follows:

“Saving of inherent power of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923 as the high courts were unable to render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality was palpable and apparent. The section envisages 3 circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely:

1. to give effect to an order under CrPC,

2. to prevent abuse of the process of the court,

3. to secure the ends of justice.

It comes into operation when the court acts judicially and passes an order. If order is passed by Executive officer of State in administrative capacity, it has no application. Therefore persons aggrieved by such order cannot come to HC to exercise its inherent power under this section. As the Inherent powers are vested in HC by “law” within meaning of Art 21 of Constitution, therefore, any order of HC in violation of any right under Art 21 is not ultravires. Eg. Cancelling of bail bond by HC thereby depriving a persons personal liberty.

Though the jurisdiction exists and is wide in its scope it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in exceptional cases., The section is a sort of reminder to the high courts that they are not merely courts in law, but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. The inherent power of the high court is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it. These powers are partly administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under section 482 is discretionary, therefore the high court may refuse to exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with clean hands.

Under CrPC , inherent powers are vested only in the high courts and the courts subordinate to the high courts have no inherent powers. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v Kali Singh , the Supreme Court held that a magistrate has no inherent power to restore a complaint dismissed in default.

In a proceeding under section 482, the high court will not enter into any finding of facts, particularly when the matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of two courts below.

Inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and NOT where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provision provided under the Code.- Kavita v. State (2000 Cr LJ 315) and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the high court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.

“To prevent abuse of process of any court”

Ordinarily HC will not interfere at an interlocutory stage of criminal proceeding in subordinate court but, HC is under an obligation to interfere if there is harassment of any person (Indian citizen) by illegal prosecution. It would also do so when there is any exceptional or extraordinary reasons for doing so. Shyam Sachdev v. State. Contra view in Shiv Prasad v. State of Rajasthan.

Test to determine whether thre has been an abuse of any court are:-

1. See whether a bare statement of facts of case would be sufficient to convince HC if it is a fit case for interference at intermediate stage.

2. Whether in the admitted circumstances it would be a mock trial if case is allowed to proceed.

Reasons HC can interfere:

1. Long lapse of time

2. Failure or impossibility to supply to accused, copies of police statements and other relevant documents- grounds for other relevant documents- grounds for HC to quash proceedings against accused.

“To secure ends of justice”

Eg. When a clear statutory provision of law is violated- HC can interfere. It is of vital importance in the administration of justice, and ensure proper freedom and independence of Judges must be maintained and allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly without undue influence on anyone, even SC. At the same time Judges and Magistrate should act with a certain amount of justice and fair play.

The SC in Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 and also in Amarnath v. Haryana(1977) and Jadhav v. Shankarrao Pawar(1983) has held the following principles would govern the exrcise of inherent jurisdiction of the HC:

1. Power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party

2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice

3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code.

It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down exhaustively as to on what ground the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised. But some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the decisions of this Court as for example State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and Another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6) SCC 194), Indian Oil Corp. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).

In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335) a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered in detail the provisions of section 482 and the power of the high court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by high courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations

in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 ) a petition under section 482 was filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by common judgments allowed the petition and quashed the two complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to Supreme Court of India.

While deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down following principles:

1. The high courts should not exercise their inherent powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of

even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.

3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a) purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence.

As the nature and scope of civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

In interest of maintaining independence of judiciary, Judges and Magistrate should be at full liberty to discuss the conduct of persons before them. However, While exercising inherent powers, the Court should observe and not violate the following three principles while expressing opinions on conduct of parties and witnesses:

1.) No person should be condemned without being heard

2.) The criticism of judges and magistrate should not travel beyond the record

3.) The criticism should be made without sobriety and due sense of responsibility.- Saulal Yadav case [1963 Raj 886]

Recent case laws

Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna [2009 (9) 768]

Here the Parties related to each other being members of the same family. Dispute was relating to a farm house. Both parties lodged FIR. In case filed against appellant his mother and sister, he was convicted. Final reports were prepared twice for the case filed by appellant against his mother and sister. Deputy Superintendent of police on the second report sought to obtain legal opinion of public prosecutor who was asked to complete the investigation and submit an appropriate report to the court. A petition was filed under Sec 482 of CrPC against order of further investigation, which was dismissed by the HC. The issue was whether

i) HC was justified in observing that valid grounds existed for granting bail to petitioners and

ii) HC was right in issuing directions for grant

iii) of exemptions from personal appearance

The SC held both in negative and remitted the matter to the HC.

State of Punjab v. Pritam Chand & Ors. [2009 (2) 457]

Powers possessed by the HC under 482 CrPC are very wide requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In the instant case Complainant was married to Appellant 1. Appellant left for U.S.A in 1999. A case under Sec 498 I.P.C and S 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was filed. Complaint was treated as FIR and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. A divorce petition was filed by Appellant in 2001, which was granted ex parte. According to appellants, complainant remarried subsequently. Appellant filed petition under sec 482 before the HC for quashing of complaint. HC dismissed the petition, and this was subsequently challenged in SC. It was held that HC was not justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants.

State of Kerala v. Jabbar [2009 (6) 659]

The respondents lodged FIR, against appellant alleging commission of offences under sec 406 and 420, I.P.C and same was registered. Thereafter investigation commenced. Even while investigation was in progress respondent moved the HC under Sec 482 CrPC, seeking directions to the police to seize an amount of Rs 2,28,00,000/- from appellants claiming that he was entitled for Rs 1,28,00,000/- for facilitating registration of land under the MOU, which amount is alleged to have been withheld by appellants along with a sum of 1 crore, stated to have been paid by him to the appellant. In the said petition there was no allegation of any collusion and deliberate delay on part of investigation agency. HC within a period of one month from the date of filing of petition, finally disposed the same observing that it is obligatory on part of respondent police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, including recording of statements from witness, arrest, seizure of property, filing of charge sheet etc. HC further directed that if account is available with accused person or any amount is in their possession, it is obligatory on part of respondent police to take all necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the respondent. HC accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete investigation within 6 months. The issues were

i) Whether it is open to HC in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec 482, to interfere with statutory power of investigation by police into cognizable offence.

ii) Whether such direction could have been issued by the HC in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec 482.

Court held both in the negative. Inherent power of the court is saved to interfere with the proceedings pending before a Criminal Court if such interference is required to secure the ends of justice or where the continuance of proceedings before a court amounts to abuse of the process of Court. Such a power is always available to HC in relation to matter pending before a criminal court.

CONCLUSION :

Section 482 CrPC has a very wide scope and its really important for the courts to use it properly and wisely. Many a times it has been observed that when there is an issue of money for eg. Any money matter then the petitioner instead of filing a civil suit files an FIR against the other person just to harass him. In such cases it becomes very important for the high courts to quash such complaints as it leads to the abuse of the process of the lower courts. This section would enable the courts for providing proper justice and also should be exercised to stop the public from filing fictitious complaints just to fulfill there personal grudges.

of approval establishment

1

List of Law Colleges having Deemed / Permanent / Temporary approval of

affiliation of the Bar Council of India as on 19th February 2010

ANDHRA PRADESH

College Name Courses imparted Statusof approval Year of

establishment

I. ANDHRA UNIVERSITY, WALTAIR

1. University Law College , Waltair 3 year course Deemed 1945

(Dr.B.R. Ambedkar College of Law ) 5 year course upto2010-2011 2009

2. Veeravalli College of Law, Rajahmundry 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1995

5 year course Upto 2008-09

3. D.N. Raju Law College, Bhimavaram 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1989

4. Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Law, Kakinada 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1992

5. P.S. Raju Law College, Kakinada 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1992

6. M.P.R. Law College, Srikakulam 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1992

7. Shri Shiridi Sai Vidya Parishad Law 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2000

College, Anakapalli

8. M.R.V.R.G.R Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1986

Viziayanagaram

9. N. B. M. Law College, Visakhapatnam 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1986

10. N. V. P. Law College, Visakhapatnam 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1980

11. Shri Shiridi Sai Vidya Parishad Law 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2003-04 1998

College, Amalapuram

12. All Saints Christian Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1991

Visakhapatnam 5 year course Upto 2010-11

13. A. V. R.Amrutha College of Law, 3 year & 5 year course for 2003-04 only 2003

Visakhapatnam

14. G. S. K. M. Law College, Rajahmundry 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1983

15. Visakha Law College, Visakhapatnam 3 year & 5 year course for 2009-10 only 2008

16. C. R. R. Law College, Eluru 3 year & 5 year course 1977

(Matter is before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.)

17. Department of Law, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar 3 year course Upto 2002-03 2000

P. G. Centre, Etcherla, Srikakulam

( If any students admitted in 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 are allowed to contniue. No

further extension of approval beyond the academic year 2005-2006)

II. ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, NAGARJUNA NAGAR

1. A.C. College, Guntur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1974

2. V.D. Siddhartha Law College, Vijayawada 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2007-08 1986

3. D.S.R. Hindu Law College, Machilipatnam 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1982

4. Indira Priyadarshini Law College, Ongole 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1991

5. J. C. College, Guntur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1989

6. University College of Law, A.Nagarjuna 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1979

University, Nagarjuna Nagar

7. M. M. College of Law, Vijayawada 3 year course Upto 2000-2001 1988

8. Bapatla Education Society’s Law 3 year course Upto 1997-98 1995

College, Bapatla

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

2

III. ICFAI FOUNDATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, HYDERABAD

(DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

1. ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad 3 year & 5 year (H) course Upto 2010-11 2009

III. KAKATIYA UNIVERSITY, WARANGAL

1. University College of Law, Kakatiya 3 year course Upto 2004-05 1980

University, Warangal 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

2. Adarsha Law College, Warangal 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1994

3. Manair College of Law, Khammam 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1990

4. Justice Kumarayya College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1991

Karim Nagar

5. Akila Bharati Law College, Warangal 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2001-02 1993

6. Santosh Education Society’s Law 3 year course Upto 1996-97 1993

College, Karim Nagar

7. Margadarshi Law College, Karim Nagar 3 year & 5 year course Upto 1997-98 1990

IV. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF LEGAL STUDIES Upto 2011-2012 1998

AND RESEARCH, HYDERABAD

V. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD

1. University College of Law, Hyderabad 3 year course Deemed 1950

5 year (int.) course Upto 2010-11 2006

2. Post Graduate College of Law, Osmania 5 year (int.) course Upto 2010-11 2006

University, Hyderabad 3 year course Upto 2000-01 1923

3. Sultan-Ul-Uloom Law College, Hyd 3 year course Permanent 1989

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

4. Padala Ram Reddy Law College, Hyd 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1988

5. Dr.Ambedkar Law College,Chikadapalli, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1991

Hyderabad

6. Ponugoti Madhva Rao Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1991

Secunderabad

7. K. V. Ranga Reddy Law College, Hyd 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1991

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

8. College for Women, Andhra Mahila 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1991

Sabha, Hyderabad

9. Mahatma Gandhi Law College, Hyd. 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1991

10. Pentakanti Law College, Hyderabad 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1990

11. Bhaskar Law College, Moinabad 3 year course Upto 2009-2010 2008

12. Viswa Bharathi College of Law, 5 year course Upto 2009-2010 2008

Hyderabad

13. Marwadi Siksha Samithi Law College, 5 year course Upto 2009-2010 2008

Hyderabad 3 year course 2008-09 only 2008

14. Vijaya Law College, Nalgonda 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2005-06 only 1991

( From 1997-98 to 2002-2003 no admission.)

15. Anwar-Ul-Uloom Law College, Hyd 3 year course Upto 1998-99 1988

16. Shadan Law College, Hyderabad 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1988

17. Nizamabad Law College, Nizamabad 3 year course Upto 1998-99 1991

18. Lokamanya Tilak Law College, Hyd 3 year course Upto 1992-93

19. Jawaharlal Nehru Law College, 3 year course Upto 1997-98

Nizamabad

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

3

VI. SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPUR.

1. University College of Law, S.K.University, 3 year course Deemed (1970) 1981

Anantapur

2. Sree Vijaya Nagar Law College, Anantapur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1990

3. Sri Prasunna College of Law, Kurnool 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1999

4. Anantapur Law College, Anantapur 3 year course Upto 1998-99 1994

5. Sri Sankara’s Law College, Kurnool 3 year course Upto 1996-97

6. Osmania Law College, Kurnool 3 year course Upto 1996-97

VII. SRI PADMAVATI MAHILA VISWAVIDHYALAYAM ,

TIRUPATI.

1. Department of Law, Sri Padmavati 3 year & 5 year course approved 1988

Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupati

VIII. SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERISTY, TIRUPATI

1. R.K.M. Law College, Chittoor 3 year & 5 year course Permanent 1991

2. Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Law College,Tirupati 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1991

3. V. R. Law College, Nellore 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1975

5 year course Upto 2003-2004 only

4. Sri P.Basi Reddy College of Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1986

Cuddapah

5. Smt. Basava Rama Tarakam Memorial 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1990

Law College, Cuddapah

6. Sri Venkateshwara College of Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1991

Tirupati

7. Anantha College of Law, Tirupati 3 year & 5 year course 2009-10 2008

8. K. K. C. College of Law, Puttur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

9. Sri Eshwar Reddy Law College, Tirupati 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

IX. TELENGANA UNIVERSITY, NIZAMABAD

1. University College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

Telengana University, Nizamabad

ARUNACHAL PRADESH

I. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ITANAGAR

1. Arunachal Law Academy, Itanagar 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

ASSAM

I. ASSAM UNIVERSITY, SILCHAR (Recognised 5 year course from 2004)

1. Karimganj Law College, Karimganj 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1984

2. Diphu Law College, Diphu 3 year course Deemed 1979

3. A. K. Chanda Law College, Silcha 3 year course Deemed 1960

4. Department of Law, Assam Univ.,Silchar 5 year course(H) Upto 2009-10 2004

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

4

II. DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY, DIBRUGARH.

1. Jorhat Law College, Jorhat 3 year course Deemed 1964

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

2. North Lakhimpur Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1999

North Lakhimpur

3. Tinsukia Law College, Tinsukia 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1973

4. Dr. R. K. Barua Law College, Dibrugarh 3 year course 1988-89 to 1989-90 and 1976

2005-06 to 2006-07

5. D. H. S. K. Law College, Dibrugarh 3 year course 1988-89 to 1989-90 and 1965

2005-06 to 2006-07

6. Sibsagar Law College, Sibsagar 3 year course 1988-89 to 1989-90 1972

7. Golaghat Law College, Golaghat 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1979

8. Centre for Juridical Studies, Dibrugarh B.A.LLB(int) Upto 2009-10 2006

University, Dibrugarh

III. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY, GUWAHATI.

1. University Law College, Gauhati 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1948

University, Gauhati 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

2. B.R.M. Govt. Law College, Guwahati. 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1914

3. Barpeta Law College, Barpeta. 3 year course Deemed 1972

4. Dhubri Law College, Dhubri 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1967

(no admission in 2008-09)

5. Tezpur Law College, Tezpur. 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1972

6. Goalpara Law College, Goalpara. 3 year course Permanent 1987

7. Bongaigaon Law College, Bongaigaon 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1994

8. Nowgong Law College, Nagaon 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1990

9. Dispur Law College, Dispur 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1994

10. Kokrajhar Law College, Kokrajhar 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1988

11. Mangaldai Law College, Mangaldai 3 year course Upto 2012-13 1991

12. J. B. Law College, Guwahati 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1969

5 year course Upto 2008-09 2006

13. Nalbari Law College, Nalbari 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1991

14. NEF Law College, Guwahati 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

15. North Eastern Regional Institute 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

of Management, Guwahati

BIHAR

I. BABASAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR UNIV., MUZAFFARPUR

( Formerly BIHAR UNIVERSITY )

1. S.K.J. Law College, Muzaffarpur 3 year course Deemed 1948

5 year course Upto 2007-08 1999

2. Munshi Singh Law College, Motihari 3 year course Upto 2005-06 1965

3. Raghunath Pandey Memorial Law 3 year course Upto 2008-09 only 2006

College, Muzaffarpur

4. Sanjay Gandhi Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 1996-97 1994

Sitamarhi

5. Shatru Mardan Shahi Law College, 3 year course Upto 1996-97 1989

Bettiah, West Champaran

II. B. N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, LALOO NAGAR, MADHEPURA

1. Suryadeo Law College, Katihar 3 year course Deemed 1982

2. C. K. M. Law College, Araria 3 year course Deemed 1982

3. Biraja Mohan Thakur Law College, Purina 3 year course Permanent 1982

4. R. M. M. Law College, Saharsa 3 year course Deemed 1972

5. S. P. Mandal Law College, Madhepura 3 year course Deemed 1979

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

5

III. CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW 5 year B.A. LL.B Upto 2007-08 2006

UNIVERSITY, PATNA

IV. JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, CHHAPRA

1. Ganga Singh Law College, Chhapra 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1964

V. L. N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA

1. C. M. Law College, Darbhanga 3 year course Upto 2007-08 only 1946

2. Videh Law College, Madhubani 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1977

3. Samastipur Law College, Samastipur 3 year course Deemed 1978

4. Ram Kumari Ayodhya Law College, 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1980

Begusarai (No admission from 2005-06 to 2006-07)

VI. MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA

1. Nawada Vidhi Mahavidhyalaya, Nawada 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1991

2. R. P.S. Law College, Patna 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1989

3. Bihar Institute of Law, Patna 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1984

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

4. College of Commerce, Patna 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1962

5. Anugrah Memorial law college, Gaya 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1964

6. Nalanda Law College, Railway 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

Station Road, Bihar Shariff

7. Aurangabad Law College, Aurangabad 3 year course Upto 1993-94 1992

8. Sanjay Gandhi Mahila Vidhi 3 year course Upto 1992-93 1991

Mahavidyalaya, Gaya

9. Faculty of Law, Kisan College, 3 year course Upto 1997-98 1989

Sohsarai, Nalanda

10. A. N. S. College, Barh 3 year course Upto 1998-99 1965

11. Soghra Law College, Bihar Shariff, 3 year course Upto 1993-94 1992

Nalanda

VII. PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA

1. Patna Law College, Patna 3 year course Permanent 1909

VIII. TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY,

BHAGALPUR ( Formerly BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY )

1. T.N.B. Law College, Bhagalpur 3 year & 5 year course Permanent 1959

2. Mahadev Singh Law College,Bhagalpur 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1986

3. Biswanath Singh Institute of Legal 3 year course Permanent 1992

Studies, Munger 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

4. Ram Deo Singh Law College, Munger 3 year course Upto 1996-97 1994

IX. VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH

1. Maharaja College, Arrah 3 year course Uto 2010-2011 1965

2. Shri Karpuri Thakur Vidhi 3 year course Upto 2009-2010 1986

Mahavidyalaya, Buxer

3. Rohtas Mahavidyalaya, Sasaram 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1981

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

6

CHHATTISGARH

I. GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY, BILASPUR

1. Kaushlendra Rao Law College, Bilaspur. 3 year course Deemed 1968

2. Swami Balkrishna Puri Law 3 year course Deemed 1972

College, Raigarh

3. Govt. Law College, Ambikapur, 3 year course Deemed 1972

Zila Sirguja

4. Govt. Thakur Chedilal Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1963

Janjigir, Zila-Bilaspur

5. D. P. Vipra Law College, Bilaspur 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1989

6. Jyoti Bhushan Pratap Singh Law 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2006

College, Korba.

7. Government P. G. College, Korba 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1989

8. Kamla Nehru Law College, Korba 3 year course Upto 1997-98

II. HIDYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR Upto 2008-09 2003

III. MATS UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR

1. MATS Law School, MATS Univ., 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

Raipur

IV. Pt. RAVI SHANKAR SHUKLA UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR

1. The School of P. G. Studies in Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1982

Pt. Ravi Shankar University, Raipur

2. Govt. Chhattisgarh College, Raipur. 3 year course Deemed 1972

3. S.K.T.D. Law College, Raipur. 3 year course Deemed 1948

(Sau.Kusum Tai Dabke Law College)

4. Govt. College, Dhamtari, Raipur. 3 year course Upto 2005-06 1984

5. Govt. D.K. College, Balodabazar, Raipur 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1982

6. Govt. College, Bastar, Kanker. 3 year course Upto 2005-06 1983

(B. P. Deo Govt. P.G. College, Kanker)

7. Kalyan Law College, Bhilainagar. 3 year course Deemed 1961

8. Govt. Post Graduate College, Jagdalpur. 3 year course Deemed 1978

9. RCS Law College, Durg. 3 year course Deemed 1968

10. Pt. Kishori Lal Shukla Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1967

Rajanandgaon

11. Kawa Global Institute, Raipur 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

12. Govt. Science, Arts Commerce 3 year course from 2003-04 to 2005-06 1995

Law College, Balod

DELHI

I. DELHI UNIVERSITY, DELHI

1. Campus Law Centre, Univ., of Delhi, 3 year course Deemed 1924

Delhi

2. Law Centre NO – I, University Campus, 3 year course Deemed 1970

Delhi University, Delhi

3. Law Centre NO – II, A.R.S.D College, 3 year course Deemed 1970

Dhaulakuan

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

7

II. G. G. S. INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY, KASHMIRI GATE, DELHI

1. Vivekananda Institute of Professional 5 year (Int.) course Upto 2011-12 2000

Studies, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi.

2. School of Law and Legal Studies, 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2001

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha

University, Delhi

3. Amity Law School, New Delhi 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1999

4. Ideal Institute of Management and 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2006

Technology, Delhi

5. Delhi Institute of Rural Development’s 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Institute of Law, Delhi

6. School of Law, Narela, Delhi 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2008

(Chanderprabhu Jain College of

Higher Studies)

III. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI

1. Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2002

Jamia Nagar, Delhi 3 year course Upto 2001-2002 1989

IV. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY B. A. LLB (H) Upto 2010-2011 2008

DELHI, DWARKA five year course

GOA

I. GOA UNIVERSITY, BAMBOLIM

1. V.M. Salgaoncar College of Law, Panaji 3 year course Deemed 1973

5 year course Upto 2007-08 1998

2. G.R. Kare College of Law, Goa 3 year course Deemed 1979

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2002

GUJARAT

I. BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY, BHAVNAGAR

1. Sheth H.J. Law College, Vidyanagar, 3 year course Deemed 1962

Bhavnagar

II. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

1. Vivekananda College of Commerce 3 year course Deemed 1968

and Law, Ahmedabad

2 Sir L.A. Shah Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1927

Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad

3. I.M. Nanavati Law College, Lal Darwaja 3 year course Deemed 1958

4. Motilal Nehru Law College, Ahmedabad 3 year course Deemed 1961

5. Maneklal Nanavati Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1961

Ahmedabad

6.Daulatbhai Trivedi Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1966

Ahmedabad

7. Law College, Godhra 3 year course Deemed 1973

8 Sheth Dosabhai Lalchand Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1961

Bhuj(Kutch)

9. M.S. Bhagat C.S.Sonawala Law 3 year course Deemed 1961

College, Nadiad

10. Siddharth Law College, Gandhi Nagar 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1990

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

8

11. Government Law College, Ahmedabad 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

III. GUJARAT NATIONAL 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

LAW UNIVERSITY,

GANDHI NAGAR

IV. HEMCHANDRACHARYA NORTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, PATAN

1. Shri S.M. Shah Law College, Mehsana 3 year course Deemed 1969

2. Shri N.S. Patel Law College, Modasa 3 year course Deemed 1973

3. Seth M.N. Law College, Patan. 3 year course Deemed 1973

4. Seth V.S. Law College, Uncha 3 year course Deemed 1969

5. Himmat Nagar Kelwani Mandal Law 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1989

College, Motipura, Himmat Nagar

6. Banaskantha Mercantile Co-op Bank 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2001

Ltd Law College, Palanpur

V. K. S. K. VERMA KACHCHH UNIVERSITY, BHUJ – KACHCHH Upto 2007-08 2006

1. Tolani Institute of Law, Adipur(Kutch) 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

VI. MAHARAJA SAYAJI RAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA

1. Faculty of Law, M.S.University,Vadodara 3 year course Permanent 1962

5 year course Upto 2013-14 2007

VII. NIRMA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, AHMEDABAD

1. Depatment of Law, Nirma University 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2007

of Science & Technology, Ahmedabad

VIII. SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY, VALLABH VIDYA NAGAR

1. Anand Law College, Anand 3 year course Deemed 1964

5 year course Upto 2008-09 2007

IX. SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY, RAJKOT

1. Law College, Junagadh 3 year course Deemed 1969

2. D.D.Kotiwala Municipal Law College, 3 year course Show cause 1974

Porbandar (Shri Dhanjibhai notice

D. Kotiwala Municipal Law College) (no admission from 2010-2011)

3. A.M.P. Law College, Rajkot 3 year course Deemed 1955

4. Smt. S.S. Ajmera Municipal Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1971

Gondal.

5. Shree K.P.Shah Law College, Jam Nagar 3 year course Deemed 1962

6. MSD Kotak Law College, Amreli 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1997

7. K. A. Pandhi English Medium Law 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2001

College, Rajkot

8. Shri H. M. Patel Mahila Law College, 3 year course Upto 2005-06 2003

Joshi Pura, Junagadh

9. Smt. V. D. Gardi Law College, 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1987

Surendranagar

10. H. N. Shukla College, Rajkot 5 year course Upto 2007-08 2006

11. Institute of Law and Forensic Science, 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

Saurastra University, Rajkot

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

9

X. SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, SURAT

1. V.T Choksi Sarvajanik Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1935

Surat

2. Dinshaw Daboo Law College, Navsari, 3 year course Deemed 1972

3. Maha Mandaleshwar Sri Krishnandji 3 year course Deemed 1968

Law College, Bharuah

4. Siddharth Law College, Kamrej 3 year course Permanent 1991

5. S.K.M. Law College, Tithal Road, Valsad 3 year course Deemed 1968

HARYANA

I. B.P.S. MAHILA VISHWAVIDYALAYA, KANPURKALAN

1. Department of Law, B.P.S. Mahila B.A. LL.B & Upto 2010-11 2009

Vishwavidyalaya, Kanpurkalan BBA.,LL.B

(P.S.D. Girls Law College) 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

II. CHAUDHARY DEVI LAL UNIVERSITY, SIRSA Upto 2007-08 2005

1. Department of Law, 5 year course Show Cause Notice 2005

Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa.

III. GURU JAMBHESHWAR UNIVERSITY, HISAR

1. Department of Law, Guru Jambeshwar 3 year course Upto 1995-96

University, Hisar

IV. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

1. Deptt. of Law, Kurukshetra University, 3 year course Deemed 1969

Kurukshetra

2. Institute of Law, Kurukshetra 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2001

University, Kurukshetra

3. Chhaju Ram Law College, Hisar 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2009

4. Lala Hans Raj Phutela College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

Sirsa

5. Swami Devi Dayal Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2007

Panchkula

6. Geetha Institute of Law, Panipat 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2007

7. Lala Ami Chand Monga Memorial 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

college of law, Ugala, Ambala

V. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK, HARYANA

1. Deptt. of Law, Maharshi Dayanand 3 year & 5 year course Deemed 1978

University, Rohtak, Haryana

2. Institute of Law and Research, Faridabad 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1998

3. Institute of Law and Management Studies, 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2000

Gurgaon.

4. B. S. Anangpuria Institute of Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

Faridabad

5. Smt. Shanti Devi Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2008

Distt. Rewari

6. Jat Education Society, Chhotu Ram 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

Institute of Law, Rohtak

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

10

VI. MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY, MULLANA-AMBALA, HARYANA

1. Department of Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2013-14 2008

M.M. University, Mullana-Ambala

VII. O. P. JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY, SONIPAT, HARYANA

1. Jindal Global Law School, 3 year & 5 year course for 2009-10 2009

O. P. Jindal Global University,

Sonipat

HIMACHAL PRADESH

I. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA

1. Faculty of Law, Himachal Pradesh 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1971

University, Shimla-5

2. School of Legal Studies, Regional Centre, 3 year course Upto 2005-06 1999

H.P.University, Dharmsala

3. School of Legal Studies, H. P. Univ., 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

Manse, Shimla – 1

4. Himachal Pradesh College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2013-14 2003

Kala Amb, Sirmour 5 year course Upto 2013-14 2007

5. L. R. Institute of Legal Studies, Solan 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

3 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

6. HIMCAPES’ Co-operative School 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2006

of law, Badhera, Una(Distt.)

7. Mata Bala Sundari College of Legal 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Studies, Sirmour 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2009

8. Dwarka Das Memorial Sai Law 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

College, Hamirpur

9. Indian Institute of Legal Studies, Shimla 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

JAMMU KASHMIR

I. KASHMIR UNIVERSITY, SRINAGAR

1. Deptt. of Law, Kashmir Univ., Srinagar 3 year course Deemed 1973

Faculty of Law, Kashmir University 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

2. Sopore Law College, Sopore 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1992

5 year course Upto 2008-09 2007

3. Kashmir Law College, Srinagar 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2005

4. K. C. Education Foundation’s Law 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

College, Pulwama-Kashmir

5. Vitasta School of Law, Sirnagar, Kashmir 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2010

II. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU, JAMMU

1. Department of Law, Univ. of Jammu, 3 year course Deemed 1969

Jammu

2. Dogra Law College, Jammu 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2000

3. K. C. Law College, Jammu 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

3 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

4. C. M. H. College of Legal Studies, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2004

Jammu

5. Jammu Law College, Jammu 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

(No admission in 5 year course in 2005-06)

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

11

6. Ashoka Law College, Kathuva 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

7. Calliope School of Legal Studies, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

Jammu

8. S. E. T. Law School, Bari Brahmana, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

Jammu

9. Bhargava Law College, Samba 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2007

10. Law School, Jammu University, 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

Jammu

11. R. K. Law College, Bari Brahmana, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

Jammu

JHARKHAND

I. RANCHI UNIVERSITY, RANCHI

1. Chhotanagpur Law College, Ranchi 3 year course Permanent 1954

2. Cooperative College, Jamshedpur 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1970

3. Ganesh Lal Aggarwal College, 3 year course 2005-2006 only 2005

Daltanganj

4. Kartik Oraon College, Gumla 3 year course 2005-2006 only 2005

5. Ranchi College, Ranchi 3 year course 2005-2006 only 2005

6. Jawaharlal Nehru Law College, Ranchi 3 year course Upto 1993-94 1992

7. A. K. Dhan Law College, Gumla 3 year course Upto 1996-97 1986

8. B. N.Singh Law College, Palameu, 3 year course Upto 1997-98 1993

Daltonganj.

II. SIDO KANHU MURMU UNIVERSITY, DUMKA

1. S. P. Law College, Dumka 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2009

2. Deogarh Law College, Deogarh 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2009

III. VINOBA BHAVE UNIVERSITY, HAZARI BAGH

1. Law College, Dhanbad 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1976

2. Imamul Hai Khan Law College, 3 year course Permanent 1983

Bokaro Steel City

3. Jharkhand Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2005

Kodarma 5 year course 2008-2009 only 2008

4. Rajendra Law College, Hazaribagh 3 year course Upto 1993-94 1988

5. Giridih Law College, Giridih 3 year course Upto 1994-95 1984

6. M. K. Law College, Taldanga, Dhanbad 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

KARNATAKA

I. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE

1. University College of Law, 3 year course Upto 1985-86 1948

Bangalore University, Bangalore. 5 year course Upto 2002-03 1986

2. B.M.S. College of Law, Bangalore 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1962

3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

3. K.L.E.Society’s Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1975

Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore 5 year course Upto 2010-2011 1996

4. Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia College 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1986

of Law, Jayanagar, Bangalore

5. Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies, 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1993

Jayanagar, Bangalore 3 year course Upto 2002-03 only 1993

6. M.S. Ramaiah Law College, Bangalore 5 year course Upto 2010-2011 1995

7. Vivekananda College of Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1983

Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore

8. B.E.S. College of Law, Jaya Nagar, 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2001

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

12

Bangalore 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

9. Babu Jagjeevan Ram Law College, 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2001

Bangalore

10. Govt. Law College, Kolar 5 year course Permanent 1996

11. Sri Kengal Hanumanthaiah Law 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1979

College, Kolar (K. G. F. Law College) 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1999

12. Rajiv Gandhi Law College, Bangalore 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2001

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

13. Al-Ameen Law College, Bangalore 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1988

14. Sri Ramakrishna Educational Trust 5 year course Upto 2003-04 only 2001

Law College, Bangalore

15. Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2002

Law College, Bangalore 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

16. Visveswarapura College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1972

Bangalore 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1986

17. Seshadripuram Law College, Bangalore 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1984

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

18. Vidyodaya Law College, Tumkur 3 year & 5 year course Deemed 1958

19. Panchmi College of Law, Bangalore 3 year course Upto 2012-13 2002

20. Sree Krishna Institute of Law, Tumkur 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

3 year course Upto 2007-08 2005

21. Oxford College of Law, Bangalore 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

22. C. M. R. Law School, Bangalore 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

23. Shri Jagadguru Renukacharya College 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1999

of Law, Bangalore 3 year course Upto 1998-99 1963

24. Sarvodya Law College, Bangalore 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

25. Indira Priyadarshini College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2000

Bangalore 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

(In 2003-04 no admission in 3 year course)

26. Sree Balaji College of Law, B’lore 3 year course Upto 2012-13 2005

27. Teachers’ Law College, B’lore 3 year course Upto 2007-08 2005

28. Sri R. E. T’s R. K. Law College, B’lore 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

29. Basavashree College of Law, Kolar 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

30. Kempegowda Law College, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

Chikkaballapur

31. Arunodaya Institute of Legal Studies, 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2006

Bangalore

32. Shri Shivayogeshwara College of 5 year course Upto 2007-08 only 2006

Law, Bangalore

33. Sree Veerandra Patil Law College, 5 year course(college closed) Upto 2007-08 2006

Bangalore

34. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar College of 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

Law, Bangalore

35. SLSRC’s Havanur College of Law, 3 year course *Upto 2010-11 1979

Bangalore 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2007

(*no admission in 3 year course from 2000-01 to 2006-07)

36. M. H. College of Law, Ramanagaram 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

37. Garden City Law College, Bangalore 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

38. Government Law College, Ramnagar 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2007

39. Dayanand Sagar College of Law, B’lore 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1979

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

40. Islamiah College of Law, B’lore 3 year course Upto 1998-99 1983

II. CHRIST UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE

1. School of Law, Christ University, B.A., LL.B(int) Upto 2011-12 2006

Bangalore BBA.,LL.B(int.) Upto 2011-12 2009

(Christ College of Law, Bangalore )

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

13

III. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA

1. H.K.E.Society’s Seth Shankarlal Lahoti 3 year course Deemed 1960

Law College, Gulbarga 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1997

2. K.P.E.Society’s Siddharth Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1982

Gulbarga 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2002

3. S.S.Seth Chunilal Amarchand Bohara 3 year course Deemed 1974

Law College, Raichur 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2007

4. K.R.E.Society’s R.V. Bidap Law 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1975

College, Bidar

5. Shri Mahadevappa Gaddagi Law 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

College, Bidar 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2000

6. V.V.V.Sangha’s Vunki Sannarudrappa 3 year course Deemed 1975

Law College, Bellary

7. Jawahar Law College, Yadgir 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2001

8. Sri K.B.B.S.S’s Law College, Gulbarga 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2006

9. D. B. H. P’S Sabhas Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

Koppal

10. Smt. Indira Law College, 3 year course Upto 2008-2009 2007

Basava Kalyan, Dist: Bidar

11. Noor Law College, Bidar 3 year course For 2008-09 only 2008

12. Basamma Gurulingappa Law College, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

Raichur

13. Arundathi College of Law, Gulbarga 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

IV. KARNATAK UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD

1. University College of Law, Karnatak 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1998

University, Dharwad 3 year course(Discontinued) Upto 1998-99 1962

2. K.P.E.S.Law College, Dharwad 3 year course Deemed 1975

3. Hurakadli Ajja Law College, Dharwad 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1983

4. G.S.K.Law College, Vidyanagar, Hubli 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1974

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

5. S.A. Manvi Law College, Gadag 3 year course Permanent 1974

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

6. K. L. E. Society’s B.V. Bellad Law 3 year course Deemed 1975

College, Belgaum 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1999

7. Raja Lakshma Gowda Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1939

Belgaum 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1998

8. B. V. V. Sangh’s S. C. Nandimath 3 year course Approved 1986

Law College, Bagalkot 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2002

( Old name is Basaweshwar Law College)

9. JSS Sakri Law College, Hubli 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1955

10. MES College of Law, Sirsi 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1974

11. Anjuman Law College, Bijapur 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1980

12. R.T.E.S Law College, Ranebennur 3 year course Approved 1985

13. K. R. C. E. Society’s Law College, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1994

Bailhongal

14. Shri Laxmanrao Jarkiholi Law 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1998

College, Gokak

15. K.L.E. Society’s Law College, Chikodi 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2000

5 year course Upto 2011-12 1999

16. Shri Siddeshwar Law College, Bijapur 3 year course Upto 2006-07 2002

17. B. L. D. E. Association’s 5 year Law 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2003

College, Jamkhandi

18. A. S. N. S’s Mahatma Gandhi Ji Law 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2003

College, Sankeshwar

19. M. P. E. Society’s Law College, 3 year course Upto 2000-2001

Honavar

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

14

V. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, HUBLI

1. School of Law, Karnataka State Law B.A. LL.B(int.) & Upto 2010-11 2009

University, Hubli BBA., LL.B(int.)

VI. KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY, SHIMOGA

1. M. K. Sreenivasa Shetty Law College, 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1992

Chikmangalur

2. Sagar Gangotri College of Law, Sagar 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1996

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

3. C. Bheema Sena Rao National College 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1966

of Law, Shimoga 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1984

4. S. J. M. Law College, Chitradurga 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1993

5. R. L. Law College, Davangere 3 year & 5 year course Deemed 1968

6. Saraswati Law College, Chitradurga 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1965

5 year course Upto 2008-09 1984

VII. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY, MANGALORE

1. Vaikunta Baliga College of Law, Udupi 3 year & 5 year course Deemed 1957

2. Shri Dharmastala Manjunatheswara 3 year course Deemed 1974

Law College, Mangalore 5 year course Approved 1984

3. K. V. G. Law College, Sullia 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1990

4. Vivekananda Law College, Puttur 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1988

5. Justice K. S. Hegde Memorial Law 5 year course Upto 2001-02 1997

College, Mangalore

6. Yedthare Manjayya Shetty Law Upto 1996-97

College, Kundapara

VIII. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF 5 year course approved 1987

INDIA UNIVERSITY, B’LORE

IX. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE, MYSORE

1. Sarada Vilas Law College, Mysore 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1954

2. J.S.S. Law College, Mysore 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-2013 1982

BBA., LL.B Upto 2011-12 2009

3. Vidya Vardhaka Law College, Mysore 3 year course Deemed 1974

5 year course Upto 2010-11 1984

4. S. B. R. R.Mahajana Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1992

Jayalakshmipura, Mysore

5. M. Krishna Law College, Hassan 3 year course Deemed 1974

5 year course Upto 2008-09 2000

6. P.E.S. Law College, Mandya 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1986

7. K. N. Nageogowda Law College, Mandya 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2002

(Old name “Shanti Law College) 5 year course Upto 2004-05 only 2002

8. Hombe Gowda Memorial Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2001-02 only 1974

Mandya

9. Government Law College, Hassan 5 year course (Int.) Upto 2009-10 2007

KERALA

I. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE

1. Govt. Law College, Kozhikode 3 year & 5 year course Deemed 1970

2. Govt Law College, Thrissur 3 year course Permanent 1995

5 year course Upto 2009-2010 2002

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

15

II. COCHIN UNIV. OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN

1. School of Legal Studies, Cochin 3 year course Permanent 1994

5 year course 2010-2011 2006

2. (National)Institute for Advanced Legal 5 year course Upto 2005-06 2002

Studies, Cochin

III. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR

1. Centre for Legal Studies, Kannur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1995

University, Thalassery

IV. KERALA UNIVERSITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

1. Govt. Law College, Thiruvananthapuram 3 year & 5 year course Deemed 1954

2. Kerala Law Academy Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Deemed 1968

Thiruvananthapuram

V. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

1. Govt. Law College, Ernakulam 3 year course Deemed 1875

2. The School of Indian Legal Thought, 3 year & 5 year course Permanent 1989

Kottayam

VI. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, (It was under Cochin Univ. of Science Tech,

COCHIN. as a college from 2002-03 to 2005-06)

MADHYA PRADESH

I. AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH UNIVERSITY, REWA

1. T.R.S. College, Rewa 3 year course Deemed 1942

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

2. Janta College, Gurh. 3 year course Upto 2003-04 only 1987

3. Govt. S.K.N (P.G) College, Mauganj 3 year course Deemed 1971

4. N.S. College, Chakghat. 3 year course Deemed 1965

5. S.V. College, Teonthar. 3 year course Deemed 1974

6. Law College, Satna. 3 year course Deemed 1960

7. College of Law and legal aid, Shadol. 3 year course Deemed 1961

8. S. G. S. Govt. College, Sidhi. 3 year course(disapproved) Upto 2007-08 1973

9. Arts Law College, Singrauli 3 year course Deemed 1973

10. Rani Durgawati Mahavidyalaya, Satna 3 year course Upto 2005-06 only 2002

11. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar Vidhi 3 year course Upto 2005-06 2001

Mahavidyalaya, Jawa, Rewa

12. Vidhyan Chal Mahavidyalaya, Jigna, 3 year course Upto 2005-06 2002

Rewa.

13. Sri Mangalam Law College, Rewa 3 year course Upto 2005-06 only 2002

14. Shri Yut Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, Rewa 3 year course Upto 2005-06 2003

15. Swami Neelkanth Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

Maihar, Rewa

16. Deptt. of Law, A. P. S. Univ., Rewa 5 year course Upto 2006-07 2004

17. Janta Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, Gohparu, 3 year course Upto 2006-07 2005

Distt.-Shadol

18. Mayaram Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

Medhauli-Morwa, Singrauli(Distt.)

19. Sanskar Law College, Anuppur 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

20. Arun Tiwari Smrithi College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

Pahadiya, Rewa

21. Sri Ramakrishna College of Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2009

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

16

Distt. Satna

II. BARKATULLAH UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

1. Saifia Arts, Commerce Law 3 year course Deemed 1965

College, Bhopal 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

2. Ravindra College, Bhopal. 3 year course Deemed 1967

3. Rajeev Gandhi College, Bhopal 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1996

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2000

4. Govt.P.G. College, Sehore. 3 year course Deemed 1969

5. S.S.L. Jain College, Vidisha. 3 year course Deemed 1960

6. L.B.S. College, Ganj Basoda. 3 year course Deemed 1966

7. Govt. P.G. College, Narsingharh. 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1988

8. Govt. College, Rajgarh. 3 year course Deemed 1972

9. Govt. Narmada College, Hoshangabad. 3 year course Deemed 1958

10. Govt. P.G. College, Pipriya 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1989

11. Law College, Betul. 3 year course Deemed Before 1983

12. Career College of Law, Bhopal 3 year course Deemed 1970

5 year course Upto 2009-2010 2002

13. Department of Law, Barkatullah 5 year course Upto 2006-07 1999

University, Bhopal

14. Madan Maharaj Law College, Bhopal 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2005-06 2002

15. Bonnie Foi College, Bhopal 3 year course Upto 2005-06 only 2003

16. Rajiv Gandhi College, Itarsi 3 year course Upto 2003-04 2001

17. Govt. State Level Law College, Bhopal 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1979

5 year course Upto 2008-09 2006

18. Bhoj Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, Bhopal 3 year course Upto 2005-06 2002

19. Jai Hind Defence College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

Bhopal

20. J. H. Govt. P. G. College, Betul 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1983

(from 1997-98 to 2005-06 no admission)

21. People’s Institute of Legal Studies, 3 year & 5 year course for 2007-08 only 2007

Bhanpur, Bhopal

22. Govt. Arts Commerce College, Harda 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1977

23. Swami Vivekanand Law College, 3 year course Upto 1996-97 1995

Bhopal

24. Chitransh A. D. Law College, Bhopal 3 year course Upto 1996-97 —–

25. Sadhu Vasvani Law College, Bhopal 3 year course Upto 1996-97 —–

26. Indira Priyadarshini Law College, 3 year course Upto 1997-98 1996

Bhopal

27. Govt. College, Bareli, Raisen 3 year course Upto 1996-97 1981

III. DEVI AHILYA VISHWAVIDYALAYA, INDORE

1. Government Law College, Indore. 3 year course show cause 1891

(no admission from 2010-2011)

2. Indore Christian College, Indore. 3 year course Deemed 1955

3. M.N.L. Law College, Khandwa. 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1960

4 Govt. P.G. College, Dhar. 3 year course show cause 1960

(no admission from 2010-2011)

5. Govt. College Jhabua. 3 year course show cause 1973

(no admission from 2010-2011)

6. Govt. College, Khargone. 3 year course show cause 1969

(no admission from 2010-2011)

7. Seva Sadan Mahavidyalaya, Burhanpur. 3 year course Deemed 1961

8. Govt. P. G. College, Barwani. 3 year course show cause 1969

(no admission from 2010-2011)

9. Govt. Law College, Alirajpur 3 year course 1989

10. Indore Institute of Law, Indore 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

5 year course for 2011-12 2007

11. R. C. Jall Law College, Mhow 3 year course Upto 2005-06 only 1974

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

17

12. Shri Vaishnav Institute of Law, Indore 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

3 year course Upto 2010-11 2007

13. Guru Gobind Singh Law College,Indore 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2004

14. M. B. Khalsa Law College, Indore 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2004

15. School of Law, Devi Ahilya Viswa 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1998

Vidyalaya, Indore.

16. Christian Eminent Academy of 3 year course 2005-06 only 2005

Management, Professional Education

and Research, Indore.

17. P. M. B. Gujarati Arts Commerce 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1963

Law College, Indore

18.College of Law, IPS Academy, Indore 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2009

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2009

IV. DR. HARI SINGH GAUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR

1. J.L.V. Law College, Damoh. 3 year course Deemed 1964

2. Govt. P.G. College, Bina. 3 year course 1983

3. Satpura Law College, Chindwara 3 year course Permanent 1962

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

4. Faculty of Law, Dr. Hari Singh Gaur 3 year course Deemed 1946

Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar 5 year course Upto 2005-06 2004

5. Pt. Motilal Nehru Vidhi 3 year course Deemed 1961

Mahavidyalaya, Chhattarpur 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

6. DBC Mahavidyalaya, Panna. 3 year course Deemed 1963

7. Govt. P. G. College, Chindwara 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2002

8. Virangana Avanti Bai Law College, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

Chhatarpur

9. Govt. P. G. Nehru College, Deori 3 year course Upto 1997-98 1995

10. J. L. Nehru Memorial College, 3 year course Upto 1997-98 1989

Sohagpur

11. Swami Vivekanand College, Sagar 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

12. Govt. P. G. College, Tikamgarh 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1982

V. JIWAJI UNIVERSITY, GWALIOR

1. Madhav Mahavidyalaya, Gwalior. 3 year course Deemed 1969

2. Maharani Laxmi Bai College of 3 year course Deemed 1948

Excellence, Gwalior 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2002

3. Mahatma Gandhi Law College, Gwalior 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2002

5 year course Upto 2010-11 1999

4. Govt. M.J.S. Mahavidhyalaya, Bhind 3 year course Deemed 1966

5. Govt. Post Graduate College, Shivpuri. 3 year course Deemed 1969

6. Govt. P. G. College, Morena 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1996

7. Institute of Law, Jiwaji Univ., Gwalior 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1999

8. Govt. P. G. College, Guna 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1965

9. Gurukul College of Law, Datia 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

10.I.T.M. School of Law, Gwalior 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2007-08 2003

(Old name is J. P. Gupta Institute of Law)

11. Govt. Nehru College, Ashok Nagar 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1998

12. Sarwa Dharma Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

Gwalior 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

13. Chaudhary Dilip Singh Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

Bhind 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

14. Gwalior Law College, Gwalior 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

15. Govt. P. G. College, Datia 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1984

(from 2000-01 to 2006-07 no admission)

16. Trimurti Law College, Gwalior 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2007

17. Govt. Modern Women’s Law 3 year course Upto 1996-97

College, Gwalior

18. Maharaja Mansingh Law College, 3 year course Upto 2004-05

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

18

Gwalior

19. Rishi Galav Law College, Morena 3 year course Upto 1996-97 1985

20. S. L. P. Govt. College, Morar 3 year course Upto 1996-97

VI. NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE 5 year course Upto 2008-2009 1998

UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

VII. RANI DURGAWATI VISHWAVIDYALAYA, JABALPUR

1. Deptt. of Law, Rani Durgawati University, 3 year course Deemed 1961

Jabalpur 5 year course Upto 2005-06 2000

2. Hitkarini Law College, Jabalpur. 3 year course Deemed 1933

3. N.E.S. Law College, Jabalpur. 3 year course Deemed 1956

4. Govt. P.G. College, Narsinghpur. 3 year course Deemed 1979

5. Govt.P.G. College, Balaghat. 3 year course Decision pending 1984

6. Govt. P.G. College, Seoni 3 year course Deemed 1981

7. Govt. S.S.P.(P.G) College, Waraseoni 3 year course Deemed 1970

8. Govt. R.D.S.(P.G) College, Mandla 3 year course Deemed 1981

9. Sanjay Gandhi Law College, Katni. 3 year course (disapproved) Upto 2007-08 1981

10. Central India Law Institute, Jabalpur 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1999

11. Neelkanth Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1998

Jabalpur (No approval in 2001-2002 and 2002-2003)

12. A. P. Narmada Law College, Jabalpur 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

13. Katni College of Commerce and Arts, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

Katni

14. Mother Theressa Law College, Jabalpur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2010

VIII. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY, UJJAIN

1. Govt. Nehru College, Agar, Malwa 3 year course Deemed 1970

2.Govt. K.P.College, Dewas 3 year course Deemed 1950

3. K.N. Katju Law College, Ratlam. 3 year course Deemed 1963

5 year course upto 2010-11 2009

4. Govt. B. S. N. College, Shajpur. 3 year course Deemed 1971

5. Govt. J.N.S. College, Shujalpur. 3 year course Deemed 1968

6. Madhav College, Ujjain. 3 year course Deemed 1964

7. Sandipani Law College, Ujjain. 3 year course Deemed 1966

8. Shri J. N. Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Approved 1965

Mandsaur 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

9. Gyan Mandir College, Neemuch 3 year course Upto 2012-13 1965

10. Nav Samwat Law College, Ujjain 3 year course Upto 2007-08 2005

11. Royal Institute of Management and 3 year course 2009-10 only 2008

Advanced Studies, Ratlam

12. Gyan Vihar College, Mandsaur 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

MAHARASTRA

I. BHARATI VIDYAPEETH DEEMED UNIVERSITY, PUNE

1. Bharati Vidyapeeth’s New Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1996

Erandwana, Pune and 5 year BBA LLB

II. DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR MARATHWADA

UNIVERSITY, AURANGABAD

1. Dr. Ambedkar Law College, Aurangabad. 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1968

2. N. P. V. N. Patil Law College, CIDCO, 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1996

Aurangabad 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

3. M.P. Law College, Arungabad 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1956

4. Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Law 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2006-07 1984

College, Osmanabad

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

19

5. M.S.P.Mandal’s Law College, Beed 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1979

6. Matsyodari Shikshan Sanstha Law 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2002

College, Jalna

7. Late MLC Vasantraoji Kale Law 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

College, Aurangabad

III. MUMBAI UNIVERSITY, MUMBAI

1. Govt. Law College, Church Gate, Mumbai 3 year course Deemed 1855

5 year course Approved

2. New Law College, Matunga, Mumbai. 3 year course Deemed 1954

3. Siddharth College of Law, Fort, Mumbai 3 year course Deemed 1956

4. K.C. Law College, Church gate, Mumbai 3 year course Deemed 1955

5. Gopaldas Jhamatmal Advani Law College, 3 year course Deemed 1977

Bandra, Mumbai

6. Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadale, 3 year course Deemed 1977

Mumbai

7. Jitendra Chauhan College of Law, 3 year course Deemed 1977

Vile Parle, Mumbai 5 year course Upto 2006-07 2004

8. V.P.M’s Thane Municipal Council’s 3 year course Deemed 1972

Law College, Thane

9. S.S.S’s Nalanda Law College,Mumbai 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2003

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2002

10. Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil College 3 year course Upto 2012-13 2003

of Law, Navi Mumbai 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2002

11. Rizvi Law College, Mumbai 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2002

12. Mahatma Gandhi Mission’s College 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2002

of Law, Navi Mumbai

13. Mahatma Gandhi Education Society 3 year course Upto 2006-07 2004

Pillai’s Law College, Navi Mumbai

14. Advocate Datta Patil College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2000

Alibag 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2002

15. Lala Lajpat Rai College of Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2007-08 2005

Mumbai

16. Hyderabad(Sind) National Collegiate 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2004

Board’s Nari Gursahani Law College,

Ulhasnagar

17. R. E. Society’s Shriman Bhagojisheth 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1995

Keer Law College, Ratnagiri 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

18. Rajarshi Shahu College of Law, Sion 5 year course upto 2010-11 2007

Mumbai 3 year course upto 2010-11

19. Lords College of Law, Malad 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

20. Manjra Charitable Trust’s College 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

of Law, Navi Mumbai

21. Kadawal Panchkroshi Shikshan 5 year course for 2007-08 only 2007

Prasarak Mandal, Sindhudurgnagari

22. Victor Dantas Charitable and Education 3 year course Upto 2009-2010 2008

Foundation, Katta, Sidhudurga (Dist.)

23. Om Vidyalankar Shikshan Sanstha’s 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2009

Asmita College of Law, Vikhroli

24. Seva Mandal Education Society’s BBA., LLB for 2009-10 only 2009

College of Law, Mumbai

25. Vivekanand Education Society’s 3 year & 5 year course for 2009-10 only 2009

College of Law, Mumbai

26. Bhagubai Changu Thakur 3 year & 5 year course upto 2010-11 2009

College of Law, New Panvel (W)

Distt-Raigad

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

20

IV. RASHTRA SANT TUKODOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

1. Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, 3 year course Deemed 1925

Nagpur University, Nagpur 5 year course Approved 1984

2. Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1984

Deeksha Bhoomi

3. N.M.D. Arts Commerce College, 3 year course Deemed 1969

Gondia

4. Yeshwant Mahavidhyalaya, Wardha 3 year course Deemed 1970

5. G. H. Raisoni Law School, Nagpur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

6. Jai Mahakali Shikshan Sanstha’s 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

Agnihotri College of Law, Wardha

7. Shantaram Potdukhe National Academy 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1974

for Legal Studies and Research, 5 year B.A. L.L.B(Hons.) Upto 2010-11 2005

Chandrapur

8. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2000

Law, Bhandara

9. Central India College of Law, Nagpur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

10. M. B. Patel Degree College of Law, 5 year course Upto 2003-04 2002

Bhandara

11. Late Govindrao Wanjari College of 5 year course Upto 2007-08 2006

Law, Nagpur

12. Maharshi Karve Shree Shikshan 5 year course for 2009-10 2006

Sansthan’s Law College for Women,

Nagpur

13. Dr. B. R. A. Law College, Nara Road, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

Nagpur

14. Dr. Milind Yerne College of Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

Kosra, Kondha, Bhandara

15. Shri Markandey Law College, 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

(Shri Markandey Adamshali Pratisthan)

Gadchiroli

V. NORTH MAHARASTRA UNIVERTSITY, JALGAON

1. K.C.S. Society’s S.S.Maniyar Law 3 year course Deemed 1970

College, Jalgaon 5 year course Approved

2. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Memorial 3 year course Deemed 1975

Law College, Dhule 5 year course Approved

3. Nandurbar Taluka Vidhayak Samiti’s 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1999

Collegeof Law, Institute of Legal

Education Research, Nandurbar

4. Dr. Ulhas Patil Law College, Jalgaon 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2007-08 2003

5. K. E. Society’s Law College, Amalner 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2006-07 2005

VI. PUNE UNIVERSITY, PUNE

1. The New Law College, Ahmednagar 3 year & 5 year course Deemed/approved 1970

2. M. G. Vidya Mandir’s K.B.H.Law 3 year course Deemed 1971

College, Malegaon

3. ILS Law College, Pune 3 year & 5 year course Deemed /approved 1924

4. A.B.M.S.P.Y.Rao Chavan Law 3 year & 5 year course Deemed /approved 1978

College, Pune

5. M.C.E. Society’s A.K.Khan Law 3 year 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1991

College, Pune

6. N.B. Thakur Law College, Nashik. 3 year & 5 year course Deemed /approved 1969

7. Vidya Partishtan’s Law College,Baramati 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1997

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2002

8. Khasdur Shri Govindrao Adik Law 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2000

College, Shrirampur

9. Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2001

Pimpri, Pune

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

21

10. Navjeevan Law College, Nashik 3 year course Upto 2007-08 only 1999

5 year course Upto 2005-06 only 1999

11. P.D.E.A’s Law College, Kharadi 3 year course Upto 2007-08 only 2002

5 year course Upto 2007-08 only 2002

12.Shri Omkarnath Malpani Law College, 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1999

Sangamner(S. P. Sanstha’s Law College) 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1998

13. Marathwada Mitra Mandal’s 5 year course Upto 2007-08 2003

Shankarrao Chavan Law College, Pune 3 year course Upto 2007-08 2004

14. Balaji Law College, Pune 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

15. Singhad Law College, Pune 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

16. Rajashree Shivraj Pratishthan’s 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2005-06 2003

Maharastra Law College, Pune

17. Shri Shivaji Maratha Society’s 3 year course Upto 2007-08 2003

Law College, Pune 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2007

18. P. E. S. Modern Law College, Pune 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

19. Deccan Edu. S. Law College, Pune 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2004

20. N. D. M. V. P. Samaj’s Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

Nashik

21. Abhinav Education Society’s Law 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

College, Ambagaon, Pune

22. HRSPM’s Law College, Rajgurunagar 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

23. S. N. B. P. Law College, Pimpri, Pune 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

VII. SANT GADGE BABA AMARAVATI UNIVERSITY, AMARAVATI

1. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh College 3 year course Upto 2010-2011 1947

of Law, Amaravati 5 year course Upto 2010-2011 2005

2. Smt. Sitabai Arts College, Akola 3 year course Deemed 1956

5 year course Upto 2007-08 2006

3. Amolakchand Mahavidyalaya, Yavatmal 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1962

5 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

4. Advocate Ramakrishnaji Rathi Law 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2000

College, Washim

5. Vinayak Vidyamandir College of Law, 5 year course Upto 2005-06 2002

Amravati

6. Shri Rambhau Shelke Law College, 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2001

Khamgaon 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

7. Mukul Wasnik College of Law, Buldana 3 year course Upto 2006-07 2001

8. Akola Law College, Akola 5 year course Upto 2007-08 2005

9. Amravati Law College, Amravati 5 year course for 2009-10 only 2009

10. Utkaranti Mandal Vidhi Mahavidalaya, BA. LL.B. 5 year upto 2011-12 2009

Jarud Amravati, Maharashtra law course

11. Sanmati Law College, Washim 5 year course upto 2011-2012 2010

VIII. SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY, KOLHAPUR

1. Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur 3 year & 5 year course Deemed & approved 1933

2. New Law College, Kolhapur 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1982

5 year course Upto 2008-09

3. N.S. Law College, Sangli 3 year & 5 year course Deemed & approved 1969

4. Ismail Saheb Mulla Law College,Satara 3 year & 5 year course Deemed & approved 1968

5. Priyadarshini Dnyan Prabodhini Law 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1991

College, Phaltan

6. Yashwantrao Chavan Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2000

Karad

7. New Law College, Sangli 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1996

5 year course Upto 2008-09 1999

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

22

IX. SHREEMATI NATHIBAI DAMODAR THACKERSEY

WOMEN’S UNIVERSITY, MUMBAI

1. Department of Law, S.N.D.T.Women’s 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2006

University, Mumbai 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2007

X. SOLAPUR UNIVERSITY, SOLAPUR For 2008-09 only 2008

1. D.G.B. Dayanand Law College, Solapur 3 year & 5 year course Deemed & approved 1964

2. Rajarshi Shahu Law College, Barsi 3 year & 5 year course Deemed & approved 1972

3. Karamveer Audumbar Patil Law 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2003

College, Pandarpur, Solapur

XI. SWAMY RAMANAND TEERTH

MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY , NANDED

1. Dayanand College of Law, Latur 3 year course Deemed 1971

5 year course Upto 2008-09 2000

2. Shri Shivaji Law College, Kandhar 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2007-08 1998

3. Shri Sarada Bhavan Education Society’s 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1970

Law College, Nanded 5 year course Upto 2007-08 1985

4. MSPM’s Shri Shivaji Law College and 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1983

Research Centre, Parbhani 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2000

5. B. B. S. P. Mandal’s Sant Tukaram 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2005

Law College, Udgir 5 year course Upto 2007-08 2005

6. Shri Sewadas Shikshan Parsarak 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

Mandal’s Mahatma Gandhi Law

College, Nanded

7. Sharadchandra Pawar Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

Nanded

XII. SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL CENTRE,

DEEMED UNIVERSITY, PUNE

1. Symbiosis Society’s Law College, Pune 3 year & 5 year course Deemed & approved 1977

MANIPUR

I. MANIPUR UNIVERSITY, IMPHAL

1. L.M.S Law College, Imphal 3 year course Deemed 1958

2. Royal Academy of Law, Oniam 3 year course Upto 2003-04 1994

3. L. M. G. Memorial Law College, 3 year course Upto 2003-04 1982

Churachandpur (allowed to admit the students for 2006-07)

MEGHALAYA

I. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY, SHILLONG.

1. Shillong Law College, Shillong, 3 year course Deemed 1964

2. Tura Law College, Tura 3 year course Deemed 1975

3. Khat-ar – Doloi law College, Jowai 3 year course Upto 2009-2010 1986

4. Department of Law, NEHU, Shillong 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

MIZORAM

I. MIZORAM UNIVERSITY, AIZWAL

1. Mizoram Law College, Aizwal 3 year course Upto 2005-06 1983

(Old name is Aizwal Law College)

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

23

2. Liandig Puia Law College, Aizwal 3 year course Upto 2003-04 only 1996

NAGALAND

I. NAGALAND UNIVERSITY, KOHIMA

1. Kohima Law College, Kohima 3 year course Upto 1997-98 1978

2. Mokokchung Law College, Mokokchung 3 year course Upto 2006-07 1981

3. City Law College, Dimapur 3 year course Upto 2003-04 1994

ORISSA

I. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY, BERHAMPUR

1. Lingraj Law College, Berhampur 3 year course Upto 2004-05 1969

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

2. Ganjam Law College, Berhampur 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1983

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

3. Jeypore Law College, Jaypore, Berhampur 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1990

4. Brahmapur Law College, Brahmapur 3 year course Upto 2002-03 1996

II. FAKIR MOHAN UNIVERSITY, BALASORE

1. Balasore Law College, Balasore 3 year course Deemed 1949

2. Bhadrak Law College, Bhadrak 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1993

III. KIIT UNIVERSITY, BHUBANESHWAR

1. KIIT School of Law, KIIT University, 5 year course Upto 2008-2009 2007

Bhubaneshwar

IV. NORTH ORISSA UNIVERSITY, MAYURBHANJ

1. Keonjhar Law College, Keonjhar 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1986

2. Mayurbhanj Law College, At/P.O. 3 year course Deemed 1978

Baripada, Distt. Mayurbhanj

V. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY, SAMBALPUR

1. Lajpat Rai Law College, Sambalpur. 3 year course Deemed 1965

2. Rourkela Law College, Rourkela 3 year course Deemed 1974

3. Balgangadhar Tilak Law College, 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1994

Sonepur

4. Balangir Law College, Balangir 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1982

5. Bargarh Law College, Bargarh 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1993

6. Kalahandi Law college, Kalahandi 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1986

7. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Law College, 3 year course Upto 2005-06 2005

Dharmagarh, Kalahandi

VI. UTKAL UNIVERSITY, BHUBANESHWAR

1. Gangadhar Mohapatra Law College, Puri. 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1981

2. Capital Law College , Bhubaneshwar. 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1982

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

3. Kalinga Law College, Bhupaneshwar 3 year course Upto 2007-08 2001

4. Jagjivan Ram Law College, Bhubaneshwar 3 year course Upto 2003-04 1998

5. Shree Biswaguru Law College, Kalibda, 3 year course Permanent 1989

Sikhapur, Cuttack

6. Biraja Law College, Jajpur,Dt.Cuttack. 3 year course Permanent 1989

7. Madhusudan Law College, Cuttack. 3 year course Deemed 1949

5 year course Upto 2008-09 1997

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

24

8. D.S. Law College, Kendrapara, Cuttack. 3 year course Permanent 1986

9. The Law College, B.P. Area, Sector-1, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1981

Cuttack

10. Athgarh Law College, Athgarh 3 year course Upto 2004-05 1997

11. Gokulananda Maharathi Law College, 3 year course Upto 2003-04 1993

Bhubaneshwar (no admission in 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2004-05)

12. Dhenkanel Law College, Dhenkanel 3 year course Upto 2005-06 1981

13. University College of Law, Vani Vihar, 3 year course Deemed 1975

Bhubaneshwar 5 year course Upto 2003-04 1997

14. B. R. M. Law College, Bhubaneshwar 3 year and 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

PONDICHERY

I. PONDICHERY UNIVERSITY, PONDICHERY

1. Dr. Ambedkar Law College, Pondichery 3 year & 5 year course Show Cause Notice 1972

(no admission from 2010-2011)

2. Sri Balaji Law School, Pondicherry 3 year & 5 year course upto 2011-12 2008

PUNJAB

I. GURUNANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB

1. Deptt. of Law, Gurunanak Dev Univ., 3 year course Deemed 1972

Amritsar

2. Deptt. of Law, Univ. Regional Centre, 3 year course Deemed 1979

Gurunanak Dev Univ, Jalander.

3. Regional Centre, Gurunanak Dev Univ., 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1999

Gurdaspur

4. School of Legal Studies, Gurunanak 5 year (Hons.) course Upto 2005-06 2002

Dev University, Jalander

5. V. M. S. College, Batala 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

3 year course Upto 2007-08 2006

6. St. Soldier Law College, Jalander 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

7. K. C. L. Institute of Law, Jalandhar 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

II. LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY, BHAGWARA 2008

1. Lovely Institute of Law, Phagwara 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

III. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

1. Deptt. of Law, Punjab Univ.,Chandigarh 3 year course Deemed 1947

2. Deptt. of Law, Punjab Univ., 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2001

Regional Centre, Mukstar

3. Rayat College of Law, Railmajra, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2004

Distt. Nawanshahar

4. University Institute of Law, Punjab 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

University’s Regional Centre 5 year course upto 2010-11 2009

Ludhiana.

5. University Institute of Legal Studies, 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

Punjab University, Chandigarh

6. Guru Hargobind Institute of Law 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

for Women, Ludhiana-Moga

7. Guru Nanak College of Law, Ludhiana 5 year course Upto 2008-09 only 2006

8. Baba Kundan Singh Memorial Law 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

College, Moga 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

9. Swami Sarvanand Giri University 3 year course 2010-2011 2007

Regional Centre, Sadhu Ashram, 5 year course 2010-2011 2007

Bajwara, Hoshiarpur

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

25

IV. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

1. Deptt.of Law, Punjabi Univ., Patiala 3 year course Deemed 1965

2. Army Institute of Law, Patiala 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1999

3. Guru Kashi Regional Centre, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1999

Punjabi University, Bhatinda

4. Bhai Gurdas College of Law, Sangrur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

5. Lincon College of Law, Patiala 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

6. Punjab College of Law, Patiala 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2006-07 2004

7. Baba Farid Law College, Faridkot 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

8. Sardar Amarjit Singh Memorial Institute 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

of Law, Dhanthal

9. Rayat and Bahara’s MMTI College 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

of Law, Sahauran

10. Punjab School of Law, 5 year integrated course Upto 2011-12 2007

Punjabi University, Patiala

11. Bhatinda Colleege of Law, Bhatinda 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-2012 2008

V. RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

RAJASTHAN

I. AMITY UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR

1. School of Law, Amity University 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2008

Jaipur BBA.,LLB.(Integrated) Upto 2011-12 2009

B.Com,LL.B(Hons.) Upto 2011-12 2009

II. JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR

1. School of Law, Jagannath University, B.A.,LL.B (int) for 2012-13 2009

Jaipur

III. JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, JAGATPURA, JAIPUR

1. School of Law and Governance 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

IV. JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

1. Faculty of Law, Jai Narain Vyas 3 year course Deemed 1947

University, Jodhpur

2. Mahila Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, Jodhpur 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

3. Jodhpur Law College and Research 3 year course Upto 2007-08 2005

Centre, Jodhpur

V. MAHARISHI DAYANAND SARASWATI UNIVERSITY, AJMER

1. Shri M. L.V. Govt. College, Bhilwara 3 year course Deemed 1971

2. Govt. College, Ajmer 3 year course Deemed 1967

3. Govt. Bangur College, Pali 3 year course Approved 1961

4. Shri B.R.Mirdha Govt.College, Nagaur 3 year course Deemed 1980

5. Sant Paramhans Law College, Ajmer 3 year course Upto 2004-05 2003

6. Ajaymeru Law College, Ajmer 3 year course Upto 2006-07 2003

(No admission in 2005-06)

7. Dr. Ambedkar Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

Tonk

8. Rajiv Gandhi Mahavidyalaya, Tonk 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

9. Dayanand College, Ajmer 3 year course Upto 1999-2000 1970

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

26

10. Ashapurna Law College, Jalore 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

VI. MODY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE, 2007

LAKSHMANGARH, DISTT. SIKAR

1. Department of Law, MITS, Lakshmangarh 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2007

BBA., LLB & Upto 2011-12 2009

B.Com., LL.B

VII. MOHANLAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY, UDAIPUR

1. University College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2006-07 1945

M. S. University, Udaipur 5 year course Upto 2008-2009 2006

2. Dr. Nagendra Singh College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2012-13 1985

Bharatiya Vidya Mandir, Banswara (No admission in 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

3. Government Law College, Sirohi 3 year course Upto 2009-10 1984

4. Udaipur College of Law Studies, Udaipur 3 year course Upto 2004-05 2003

5. Bhupal Nobel’s Law College, Udaipur 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

6. Vardhman College, Udaipur 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

7. Dr. Anushka Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

Udaipur (No admission in 2005-06)

8. Dwarkesh Law College, Rajsamand 3 year course Upto 2004-05 2003

9. Ravindranath Tagore Law College, 3 year course Upto 2007-08 2003

Gandhi Nagar, Chittorgarh (No admission in 2005-06)

VIII. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR BBA LLB., B.Sc. LL.B Recognised 1999

IX. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR

1. B.S.R. Govt. Arts College, Alwar. 3 year course Deemed 1979

2. Univ. College of Law, University 3 year course Deemed 1947

of Rajasthan, Jaipur B.A., LL.B(int.) Upto 2009-10 2008

3. S.K. Govt. College, Sikar. 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1979

4. M.S.J. College,

5. Govt. College, Dholpur. 3 year course Deemed 1979

6. Khandelwal Law College, Bharatpur 3 year course Upto 2007-08 2002

7. Jaipur Law College, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2006-07 2002

8. Vidyasthali Law College, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2002

9. Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phoole Women’s 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2002

Law College, Jaipur

10. Maharshi Dayanand Law College, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

11. Sanjay College of Law, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2006-07 2003

12. Rajputana Law College, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2006-07 only 2003

13. Shaheed Bhagat Singh Law College, Sikar 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2003

14. Seth Motilal Law College, Jhunjunu 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

15. University Law College, Centre II, 3 year course Upto 2004-05 1992

Rajasthan University, Jaipur

16. Bhagwan Mahaveer Law College and 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

Research Centre, Jaipur

17. Shaheed Bhagat Singh Vidhi 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

Mahavidyalaya, Khatipura, Jaipur (No admission in 2005-06)

18. Akshadeep Girls Law College, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

19. Dausa Law College, Dausa 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

20. St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2003

21. Mahaveer Law College, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

22. Shri Bhawani Niketan Law College, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

Jaipur

23. Rajasthan Law College, Sikar 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

24. Arya Kanya Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

Alwar

25. Rajasthan Law College, Chirawa 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

27

Distt. Junjunu

26. Shri Krishna Academy of Legal 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005.

Studies, Alwar

27. Rajdhani Law College, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

28. Deepshikha Law College, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2004

29. Tagore Public Law College, Kotputli 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2004

30. Bharat Law College, Jaipur 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

31. Baba Mungipa Law College, Pilani 3 year course Upto 1996-97 1988

32. Siddhi Vinayak College of Law, Alwar 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

33. Mahima Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course for 2008-09 only 2008

Jhunjhunu

34. Maa Kalawati Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course for 2008-09 only 2008

Alwar

35. Seth Rajnarayan Gupta Law College 3 year course Upto 2010-2011 2009

for Women Babakheta Nath

Vidyapeeth, Bhitera, Alwar

36.Shri Krishakna Law College, Kotputli 3 year course Upto 2009-2010 2009

X. UNIVERSITY OF BIKANER, BIKANER

1. B.J.S.R. Jain College, Bikaner 3 year course Deemed 1973

2. Govt.Dunger College, Bikaner 3 year course Deemed 1948

3. Govt. Lohia P.G.College, Churu 3 year course Deemed 1979

4. N. M. law College, Hanumangarh 3 year course Deemed 1980

5. Seth G. L. Behani S. D. Law College, 3 year course Permanent 1967

Sri Ganganagar

6. S.G.N. Khalsa College, Sri Ganga Nagar 3 year course Deemed 1974

7. Govt. P. G. College, Sri Ganganagar 3 year course 1979

8. Gyan Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, Bikaner 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

9. Maharishi Dayanand Law College, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

Sri Ganganagar

10. Swami Keshwanand Vidhi 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

Mahavidyalaya, Sangaria

11. Y. M. Law College, Bikaner 3 year course 2003-04 to 2004-05

(permitted the students to complete their course who were admitted

in the above mentioned academic years. Further no admission.)

XI. UNIVERSITY OF KOTA, KOTA

1. Bharat Law College, Kota 3 year course Upto 2003-04 2002

2. Govt. College, Kota 3 year course Deemed 1948

3. Govt. College, Jhalawar 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1985

4. Govt. College, Bundi 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1979

5. Ranthambore Law College, 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

Swai Madhopur (no permission for admission from 2009-2010.)

6. Veena Memorial Law College, Karauli 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

7. Shahid Captain Repudeman Vidhi 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Mahavidyalaya, Sawai Madhopur

XI JODHPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR (PRIVATE UNIVERSITY)

1. Jodhpur Institute of law,

JNL, JODHPUR B. A. LLB five year Upto 2010-11 2009

integrated Course

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

28

XII NIMS UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

1. School of Law, BBA LLB 5 year upto 2011-12 2009

NIMS University, Jaipur integrated course

SIKKIM

I. NORTH BENGAL UNIVERSITY, RAJARAMMOHANPUR

1. Sikkim Govt. Law College, Sikkim. 3 year course Discontinued 1980

5 year course Approved 1996

TAMIL NADU

I. TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI

1. Central Law College, Salem 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1982

2. Government Law College, Thirunelveli 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2007-08 1996

3. Government Law College, Thirchy 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2007-08 1979

4. Government Law College, Coimbatore 3 year & 5 year course Permanent 1979

5. Dr. Ambedkar Government Law 5 year (B. A.B.L.) Hons. Upto 2010-11 2002

College, Chennai 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-2011 1891

(No admission in 2002-03 2003-04 in 3 year and 5 year courses)

6. Government Law College, Madurai 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2008-09 1974

7. School of excellence, Tamil Nadu 5 year (B.L.)Hons. Upto 2010-11 2002

Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai

8. Dr. Ambedkar Law College, Tamil Nadu 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2007-08 2004

Dr. Ambedkar Law Univ., Chengalpattu

(Old name University Law College)

9. Government Law College, Vellore 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

II. SASTRA UNIVERSITY, THANJAVUR

1. School of Law, Sastra University, 3 year & 5 year course for 2008-09 2008

Thanjavur

III. SAVEETHA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI

1. Saveetha Collge of Law, Saveetha 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

University, Chennai

IV VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE,

TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCED STUDIES (VISTAS) VELS

UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU

1. Insitue of Law, VELS University, 5 year B. A. BL (H) course Upto 2012-13 2010

Chennai and 3 year BA BL course

TRIPURA

I. TRIPURA UNIVERSITY, AGARTALA

1. Tripura Govt. Law College, Agartala. 5 year course Upto 2010-11 1998

3 year course Upto 1997-98 1986

II. ICFAI UNIVERSITY, AGARTALA

1. ICFAI Law College, Agartala 3 year course and Upto 2010-11 2009

5 year BBA LLB(H)course

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

29

UTTARAKHAND

I. HEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY, SRINAGAR, GARHWAL

1. D.A.V. College, Dehradun 3 year course Upto 2010-11 1948

2. S.R.T. Const. College, Tehri 3 year course Deemed 1975

3. Dr. B.G.Reddy Const. College, Pauri 3 year course Deemed 1977

4. Govt. Degree College, Gopeshwar, 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1979

Garhwal

5. Law College, Dehradun 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2002

6. Unison Law College, Dehradun 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

7. Bishamber Sahai Law Institute, Roorkee 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

8. B. S. M. Law College, Roorkee 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

9. Roorkee Degree College of Law,Roorkee 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2005

10. Libra College of Law, Dehradun 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2006

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

11. Chandrawati Tiwari Law College, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal.

12. Pt. Purnanand Tiwari Law College, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Jawalapur Haridwar

II. I.C.F.A.I. UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

1. School of Law, I.C.F.A.I. Univ., 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

Dehradun 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

III. KUMAON UNIVERSITY, NAINITAL

1. The Faculty of Law, Kumaon Univ., 3 year course Deemed 1976

Almora

2. Chanakya Law College, Rudrapur 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

3. The Unity Law College, Rudrapur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

IV. UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES,

DEHRADUN

1. College of Legal Studies, 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

University of Petroleum Energy BBA., LL.B Upto 2011-12 2009

Studies, Dehradun

UTTAR PRADESH

I. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH

1. Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim 5 year course Deemed More than

University, Aligarh 100 years

II. ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY, ALLAHABAD

1. Faculty of Law, Allahabad Univ., 3 year course Deemed 1872

Allahabad 5 year course Upto 2007-08 2005

2. Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad 3 year course Deemed 1972

3. C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad 3 year course Deemed 1950

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

30

III. AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA

1. Amity Univertsity’s Law School, 5 year B.A.LL.B(H) Upto 2011-12 2007

Lucknow 5 year courses Upto 2011-12 2009

((BBA.LLB.(H), BCom.LLB(H))

2. Amity Law School, Noida 5 year B.A.LLB(H) Upto 2011-12 2007

5 year courses Upto 2011-12 2009

(BBA.LLB.(H), BCom.LLB(H))

3. Amity Law School Centre-II, Noida B. A. LLB (H) Upto 2011-2012 2009

5 year course

IV. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY, VARANASI

1. University Law school, Banaras 3 year course Deemed 1916

Hindu University, Varanasi

V. BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY, JHANSI

1. Bundelkhand College, Jhansi 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1961

2. B. J. R. Institute of Law, Bundelkhand 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2002

University, Jhansi

3. Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar College 3 year course upto2012-13 2006

of law, Girwan, Banda 5 year course upto 2012-13 2010

4. Bundelkhand Law Degree College, Orai 3 year course Upto 2009-2010 2007

VI. CH CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY, MEERUT ( formerly MEERUT UNIVERSITY)

1. Meerut College, Meerut 3 year course Deemed 1893

2. N.A.S. College, Meerut 3 year course Deemed 1958

3. J.V. Jain College, Saharanpur 3 year course Deemed 1958

4. D.A.V College, Muzaffarnagar 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1959

5. N.R.E.C. College, Khurja 3 year course Deemed 1952

6. Translam College of Law, Meerut 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2002

7. I. I. M. T. Law College, Meerut 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2003

8. Mewar Institute of Management, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2000

Ghaziabad

9. I. M. E. Law College, Sahibabad 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2002

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

10. I. P. S. Law College, Ghaziabad 3 year course Upto 2005-06 only 2002

11. I. A. M. R. Law College, Ghaziabad 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2005-06 2002

12. Janhit College of Law, Greater Noida 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2002

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

13. Integrated School of Law, Ghaziabad 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2002

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2006

14. Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2003

15. S. D. College of Law, Muzzafarnagar 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2003

16. Doon College of Law, Sunderpur 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

Distt. Saharanpur 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2004

17. B. D. S. School of Law, Meerut 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

18. I. T. S. Law College, Mohan Nagar 5 year course Upto 2006-07 2004

19. Modern College of Law, Ghaziabad 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

20. Hari College of Law, Saharanpur 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

21. Harlal School of Law, Greater Noida 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2004

3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

22. I. M. S. Law College, Noida 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2004

23. Deen Dayal College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

Muzaffarnagar

24. Dewan Law College, Meerut 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

31

3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

25. Amity Law School, Greater Noida 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2003

26. Gandhi Law College, Meerut 3 year course Upto 2004-05 only 2004

27. Institute of Law, Ch. Charan Singh 5 year course Upto 2005-06 2004

University, Meerut

28. Phoolwati Devi Institute of Law, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2004

Tatiri, Distt : Bagpat

29. Sankalp Institute of Law, Ghaziabad 3 year course Upto 2006-07 2005

30. I. P. E. M. Law Academy, Ghaziabad 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

31. Shri Swami Vivekanand Law College, 3 year course Upto 2012-13 2005

Hapur

32. Bhagwati College of Law, Meerut 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

33. Shri Ram College of Law, Muzaffar Ngr 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

34. Unique Law College, Modi Nagar, 3 year course Upto 2006-07 2005

Ghaziabad

35. S. V. M. Law College,Sikarpur, Bulandsahar3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

36. Deepanshu Law College, Sharanpur 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

37. Innovative Institute of Law, G.Noida 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2013-14 2005

38. Royal College of Law, Ghaziabad 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2006

39. Reliable Institute of Law, Ghaziabad 3 year law course Upto 2010-11 2006

40. M. M. H. College, Ghaziabad 3 year course 1948

41. I. M. R. College of Law, Ghaziabad 5 year course Upto 2003-04 only 2002

42. B. M. Law College, Muzaffarnagar 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

43. Kamkus College of Law, Ghaziabad 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

44. H. L. M. Law College, Ghaziabad 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

45. Asian Law College, Distt-Saharanpur 3 year course Upto 2009-2010 2008

46. Parsandi Devi College of Law, Bilaspur 3 year course Upto 2011-2012 2009

Gautambudh Nagar

47.Islamia College of Law, Saharanpur 3 year course Upto 2011-2012 2009

48. Balaji College of Law, Saharanpur 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2010

VII. D. D. U. GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY, GORAKHPUR

1. Faculty of Law, Gorakhpur Univ., 3 year course Upto 2007-08 Before 1979

Gorakhpur

2. St. Andrews College, Gorakhpur 3 year course Deemed 1947

3. Sant Vinoba College, Deoria 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1972

4. A.P.N. College, Basti 3 year course Deemed 1973

( Ambika Pratap Narain P.G. College )

5. Oriental Law Institute, Deoria 3 year course Upto 2007-08 2005

6. Pt. Surya Narain Chaturvedi Law 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Degree College, Santkabir Nagar

7. Radiant College of Law, Gorakhpur 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2007

8. P. D. Law College, Sant Kabirnagar 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

VIII. DR. BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA

(Formerly Agra University)

1. Babu Shivnath Aggarwal College, 3 year course Deemed 1960

Mathura 5 year course Upto 2009-10 1998

2. Sri Varshney College, Aligarh 3 year course Deemed 1947

3. D.S. College, Aligarh 3 year course Deemed 1973

5 year course Upto 2011-12 1998

4. Aditya College of Law, Agra 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2000

5. R. K. College of System, Management 5 year course Upto 2003-04 only 2002

and College of Law, Firozabad

6. Shri Hari Das Institute of Legal Studies 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2005-06 2003

and Research, Mathura

7. Shri Girraj Maharaj College of Law 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2013-14 2003

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

32

and Professional Studies, Mathura

8. Vrindavan Law College, Mathura 3 year course Upto 2013-14 2003

9. Shri Jee Baba College of Law, Mathura 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

10. Deptt. of Law, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar 3 year course Upto 2005-06 2003

University, Agra

11. Smt. Laungshree Devi College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2009-2010 2004

Distt : Mahamayanagar 5 year course Upto 2009-2010 2007

12. Vivekananda College of Law, Aligarh 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2004

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2006

13. H. S. Law College, Etah, Agra 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

14. Shri Jagdamba Law College, Agra 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

15. Agra College, Agra 3 year course 1823

IX. DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA AWADH UNIVERSITY, FAIZABAD

( Formerly Awadh University)

1. K.S.Saket Post Graduate College, 3 year course Deemed 1960

Faizabad

2. Kamla Nehru Vidhi Sansthan, Sultanpur 3 year course Deemed 1973

(Old Name : Kamla Nehru Institute of 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

Science and Technology)

3. Nandini Nagar Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

Nawabganj, Gonda

4. Rajesh Pandey College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

Ambedkarnagar 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

5. Sanjivnie College of Law, Kirtanpur 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2006

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

6. Shakti Smarak Vidhi Sansthan, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

Dulhinpur, Balrampur

7. Shri Chinta Mani Smarak Vidhi 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Mahavidyalaya, Pratapgarh

8. Chhatra Bali Singh Law College, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Akbarpur, Ambedkarnagar

9. T. R. C. Law College, Barabanki 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

10. Gramyanchal Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

Haidergarh, Barabanki (Distt.)

11. Avadh Law College, Asaini,Barabanki 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

12. Kamla Prasad Singh Vidhi Mahavidhyalaya,

Distt-Sultanpur, UP 3 year course upto 2011-2012 2009

X. DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2006

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

LUCKNOW

XI. JAGADGURU RAMBHADRACHARYA

HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY, CHITRAKOOT.

1. Department of Law, J.R.H. University, 5 year course Upto 2008-09 2007

Chitrakoot (Integrated)

XII. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

1. The Faculty of Law, Lucknow Univ., 3 year course Deemed 1921

Lucknow 5 year course Permanent 1995

2. Sri Jai Narain Degree College, Lucknow 3 year course Deemed 1972

3. Shia P.G.Degree College, Lucknow 3 year course Upto 2008-09 1971

4. D.A.V. Degree College, Lucknow 3 year course Show cause Notice 1972

(no admission from 2010-2011)

5. Unity Law College, Lucknow 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1998

6. Narvdeshwar Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2004

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

33

Lucknow 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

7. Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Law 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

College, Harkansgarhi, Lucknow 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

8. City Academy Law College, Lucknow 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

5 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

9. Heeralal Yadav Law College, Lucknow 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

10. Excel Law College, Sitapur 5 year (Hons.) course Upto 2011-12 2006

11. Lucknow Law College, Lucknow 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

12. St. Mother Teresa Law Degree College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

Lucknow

XIII. MAHATMA GANDHI KASHI VIDHYAPITH, VARANASI (Formerly Kashi Vidhyapeeth)

1. Faculty of Law, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi 3 year course Approved 1983

Vidyapeeth, Varanasi 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2003

XIV. M. J. P. ROHILKHAND UNIVERSITY, BAREILLY

1. Bareilly College, Bareilly 3 year course Deemed 1837

2. K.G.K. College, Moradabad 3 year course Upto 2007-08 1948

3. Krishna College of Law, Bijnor 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2002

4. Shriji Institute of Legal Vocational 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2003

Education and Research’s Silver Law

College, Bareilly

5. Model Public Law College, Chandausi 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

6. Swami Sukhdevanand Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

Shajahanpur 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

7. Vivek College of Law, Bijnor 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

8. Hafiz Rehmat Khan Law College, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

Pilibhit

9. Teju Singh Memorial Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

Shabaipur, Gajraula

10. Hakeem Mehtabuddin Hashmi 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2006

College of Law, Aamroha

11. Classic College of Law, Bareilly 3 year course Upto 2008-09 2007

12. Virendra Kumar Singhal Law College, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

Moradabad

13. Moradabad College of Law, Moradabad 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

14. Dhampur Law College, Dist. Bijnor 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2008

15. Bankey Behari College of Law, Badaun 3 year course Upto 2012-13 2009

16. Lord Mahavira College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2009

Moradabad

17. Unique College of Law, Moradabad, 3 year & 5 year course Upto 2012-13 2003

XV. NEHRU GRAM BHARATI UNIVERSITY, DUBAWAL, ALLAHABAD

1. Faculty of Law, N. G. B. University, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

Dubawal, Allahabad

XVI. SHRI CHATRAPATI SHAHUJI MAHARAJ UNIVERSITY, KANPUR

1. V.S.S.D. College, Kanpur 3 year course Show cause notice 1928

2. Brahmanand College, Kanpur 3 year course Deemed 1964

3. Mahmoodabad Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

Mahmoodabad

4. Dayanand College, Kanpur 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1958

5. Shaheed Bhagat Singh Vidhi 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2004

Mahavidyalaya, Bithoor

6. Major Shiv Dayal Singh Law College, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

Fathegarh, Farukhabad

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

34

7. Khaitanji Law College, Sitapur 3 year course Upto 2012-13 2005

8. Manu Law College, Mohamdabad 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

9. G. Singh Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2007

Allahabad

10. Devanshu Samaj Kalyan Sewa Vidhi 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

Mahavidyalaya, Kannauj

11. Adharshila Law College of 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Professional Courses,Ataura, Raibareli

12. Dr. Govind Prasad Rani Devi Patel 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, Kanpur

13. Ch. Ram Gopal Singh Vidhi 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Mahavidyalaya, Kanpur Nagar

14. Sanskar Law College, Allahabad 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

15. Thakur Yugraj Singh Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

Fatehpur

16. Prayag Citizen Law College, Allahabad 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

17. Gulab Fulandar Vidhi MAhavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

Hardoi

18. Atibal Singh Vidhi Mahavidlaya, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2010

Allahabad, UP

19. Manyawar Kanshiram Law College, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2010

Hardoi, UP

XVII. SWAMI VIVEKANAND SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY, MEERUT

1. Sardar Patel Subharati Institute of Law, 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2002

Meerut

XVIII. VEER BAHADUR SINGH PURVANCHAL UNIVERSITY, JAUNPUR

1. Shibali National College, Azamgarh 3 year course Deemed 1952

2. Tilakadhari Mahavidhyalaya, Jaunpur 3 year course Deemed 1959

3. Maharaja Balvant Singh College, 3 year course Deemed 1973

Gangapur, Varanasi

4. Harichandra Mahavidhyalaya, Varanasi 3 year course Deemed 1958

5. Sant Keenaram P.G. College, Sonebadra 3 year course Upto 2011-12 1995

6. Sri Narahheji Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2005-06 2002

Narahi Rasara, Ballia

7. Maa Sarada Law College, Azamgarh 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

8. Dr. Rizvi College of Law, Karari, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2003

Kaushambi 5 year course Upto 2005-06 2004

9. Baldeo Shri Dhar Law College, Gazipur 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

10. Kisan Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, Muriyari, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

Jakhanian, Gazipur

11. Shivani Gaurav Memorial Law College, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

Jaunpur

12. Shri Jagrup Yadav Smarak 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, Mau

13. Sudhakar Women’s Law Degree 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2003

College, Varanasi

14. Hari Shankar Prasad Law College, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

Ballia

15. Lok Bhandhu Raj Narain Vidhi 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2004

Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi

16. Maa Khandwari Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

Chandauli

17. R. S. Banaras Law College, Varanasi 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

18. Uma Nath Singh Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

Faridpur, Jaunpur

19. Smt. Kanti Singh Law College, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

Gayanpur, Bahadohi,

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

35

20. Sant Lakhan Das Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2005

Gazipur,

21. Pushpa Singh Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

Mirzapur

22. Mathura College of Law, Mirzapur 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

23. Kaushambi Law College, Kaushambi 3 year course Upto 2010-11 2009

24. Shri Babu Singh College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2010

Kaushambi,

25. Ram Sajivan Singh College of Law, 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2010

Jayanti Pur, Kaushambi, UP

WEST BENGAL

I. BURDWAN UNIVERSITY, BURDWAN

1. Deptt. of Law, Burdwan University, 3 year course Deemed 1971

Burdwan

2. Hoogly Mohsin College, Hoogly 3 year course Deemed 1971

3. Law College, Durgapur, Burdwan 3 year course Upto 2011-12 2005

5 year course Upto 2011-12 2007

4. Bengal Law College, Sriniketan 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2006

3 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

5. Durgapur Institute of Legal Studies, 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

Durgapur 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2007

II. CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY, CALCUTTA

1. University College of Law, Calcutta 5 year course uto 2011-12 1908

University, Kolkata

2. Surendra Nath Law College, Kolkata 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1984

3. South Calcutta Law College, Kolkata 5 year course UPto 2011-12 1970

4. Jogesh Chandra Choudhury Law College, 5 year course Upto 2011-12 1984

Kolkata

5. Kingston Law College, Barasat 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2004

BBA LLB and

B. Com LLB course Upto 2011-12

6. Biksha Bharati Law College, 5 year course for 2006-07 only 2006

Sukhdevpur, 24 Praganas

7. Rabindra Shiksha Samelani Samity’s 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

Law College, Dhakujrai, Kolkata

8. Jyortimoy School of Law, Kalikapur 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2008

III. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR

1. Rajiv Gandhi School of Intelectual 3 year I.P.Law course Upto 2011-12 2006

Property Law, Kharagpur

IV. NORTH BENGAL UNIVERSITY, RAJARAMMOHANPUR

1. Univ. College of Law, North Bengal 3 year course Deemed 1974

University, Rajarammohanpur

2. Jalpaiguri Law College, Jalpaiguri 5 year course Upto 2009-10 2000

3 year course Upto 2000-2001 1981

3. Balurghat Law College, Balurghat 5 year course Upto 2003-04 2000

College Name Courses imparted Status Year of

of approval establishment

36

V. VIDYASAGAR UNIVERSITY, MIDNAPORE

1. Midnapore Law College, Midnapore3 year & 5 year course Permanent

2002

2. Haldia Law College, Haldia 3 year & 5 year course Permanent 2002

3. Sarsuna Law College, Sarsuna 3 year course Upto 2009-10 2005

VI. UNIVERSITY OF KALYANI, KALYANI

1. Bimal Chandra College of Law, 5 year course Upto 2010-11 2002

Murshidabad

2. Snehangshu Kanta Acharya Institute 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2004

of Law, Kalyani

3. M. A. B. Institute of Juridical Science, 5 year course Upto 2011-12 2009

Dist. Murshidabad

4. JRSET College of Law, Chakdaha Nadia 5 year course (int.) Upto 2010-11 2009

VII. WEST BENGAL NATIONAL 5 year course Permanent 1999

UNIVERSITY OF JUDICIAL

SCIENCES, KOLKATA

VIII. WEST BENGAL STATE UNIVERSITY, 24 PARGANAS, BARASAT

1. Department of Law, B.A.,LL.B(int.) Upto 2012-13 2009

West Bengal State University,

24 parganas, barasat

—-0—–

Note :

“int.” – Integrated course

Delhi Faculty of Law

NLU Jodhpur

NLIU Bhopal

RGNUL Patiala

RMLNLU Lucknow

UPES Dehradun

Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat

Faculty of Law, BHU

Army Institute of Law, Mohali

Amity Law School, Delhi

AMU, Faculty of Law, Aligarh

ICFAI Law School, Dehradun

South India

NALSAR Hyderabad

NLSIU Bangalore

School of Law, Christ University (SLCU), Bangalore

NUALS Cochin

ULC Bangalore

BILS Bangalore

Kerala Law Academy, Thiruvananthapuram

TN Dr. Ambedkar School of Excellence, Chennai

Western India

GLC Mumbai

ILS Pune

Symbiosis Pune

GNLU Gandhinagar

Balaji Law College, Pune

Salgaonkar Law College, Panjim

Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Pune

Eastern India

NUJS Kolkata

HNLU Raipur

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

KIIT Law school, Bhubaneshwar

MATS Law School, Raipur

Located at Nagarbhavi in Bangalore, National Law School of India University offers undergraduate, postgraduate and research programs. Distance education is also provided here.

•NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

One of the prestigious Law Schools in India, it also conducts exchange programs with renowned law institutes from across the world, apart from offering regular programs in law. The university campus is located 28 kilometers from Hyderabad city.

•National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal

You can study the 5 year B.A., LL.B program at NLIU, which began offering academic courses since 1998.

•National Law University, Jodhpur

For admission to the undergraduate program in NLU, you need to take Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), whereas for applying for a postgraduate program, you can appear for the National Entrance Test (NET), which is organized by NLU.

•Campus Law Centre, Delhi University

For studying in Campus Law Centre located in Chhatra Marg of North Campus, you have to appear in a Common Entrance Test.

•NUJS, Kolkata

 The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences screens students applying to its courses by evaluating their performance in CLAT. It has undergraduate, postgraduate and fellow programs on offer. Symbiosis Society’s Law College, Pune- You can apply for the undergraduate, postgraduate or diploma program in this premier law school.

•ILS Law College, Pune

 Besides the integrated 5 year program and a degree program, it also offers distance education and diplomas.

•Government Law College, Mumbai

 Apart from 5 year and 3 year law programs, this Law School offers LL.M program and a PG Diploma program in Securities Law.

•Amity Law School , Delhi

 Considered one of the top 10 law Schools in India, it admits students to LL.B(H) course on the basis of a Common Entrance Test, which is organized by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in Delhi.

The purpose of joint ventures is that two companies can achieve more together, in terms of growth, revenue and so on. There are several benefits of entering in joint ventures, such as:

•Pooling of resources

•Full utilization of under utilized resources

•Higher rates of profits

•Low risk factor

•Massive leverage

Company Law: Different Types of Joint Ventures in India

There are various forms of joint ventures in India, formed under company law. The types of joint ventures mainly depend on, objective of the joint venture, number of parties involved and duration of the joint venture. Some popular forms of joint ventures in India, are:

Licensing:

A foreign company authorizes an Indian company to use its strong brand name, to produce a certain product. The overseas company charges a license fee, for sharing its brand name, patents or copyrights. In this manner, the foreign company ensures an immediate access to the Indian market at a lower price. However, the foreign company does not have any control over the distribution, sales and image of the product in the Indian market.

Franchising:

In this type of a joint venture, a foreign company (franchisor) lends its well-known brand name, goodwill, technical know-how and expertise, to an Indian company (franchisee), to conduct its business. In turn, the franchisor receives a specific amount of turnover from the franchisee. This type of a joint ventures involve low risk, less investment and ensure fast entry in Indian markets for the franchisor. McDonalds is an example of this type of franchising in India. It lends its brand name and business know-how to individual entrepreneurs.

The success of a joint venture projects depends on proper planning and clear objectives. To minimize any complications in later stages, it is essential to thoroughly discuss the terms and conditions of the contract. Further, before signing the contract, it is important to consult a lawyer who is well versed with company law and international laws.

“Foreign direct investment is so important to the growth of China’s economy that the national government doesn’t want to do anything to endanger that.” – Clive Jones

Preface

One of the most conspicuous and remarkable outcome of the process of globalization and liberalization has been the opening up of economies of evidently all the countries around the globe. The post globalization era has witnessed the emergence of a noteworthy principle in practice, namely, amalgamation of domestic economies with that of the global economy, which in turn has made a remarkable impact on each and every economic sector of all the nations. 

Nations are opening up the doors of all the permissible sectors of their economy, generously, to not just their national players, but also to foreign nationals, in order to boost the countries’ economic and social progress and in due course the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In other words, the progression of globalization and liberalization has led to the emergence of the world as a single giant promising market.

Amidst today’s time of fierce competition and a quest to achieve and enhance a substantial level of economic and social development; each and every nation is trying to liberalize its economic policies in order to attract investments from not only, domestic players, but also from magnates all across the globe. Consequently, people with generous reserves of funds, all around the globe, are expanding their wings and seeking opportunities of investing in different spheres of this lucrative market.

What needs to be highlighted here is that India is not oblivious to the rapid developments taking place in the global market and has emerged as one of the prime destinations for the investment of funds from an impressive number of foreign investors.

This transnational movement of funds for the purpose of investment by the national/s of one country in another can be broadly defined as Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). In other words, FDI can be defined as the movement of capital across national frontiers in a manner that grants the investor control over acquired assets.

The advent of FDI in India was witnessed during the end of 1990’s when the Indian national government announced a number of reforms which aimed at helping in the process of liberalization and deregulation of the Indian economy.

Since its inception there has been a remarkable surge in the FDI inflows in the country. The total amount of FDI in India came to around US$ 42.3 billion in 2001, in 2002 this figure stood at US$ 54.1 billion, in 2003 this figure came to US$ 75.4 billion, and in 2004 this figure increased to US$ 113 billion. This shows that the flow of foreign direct investment in India has grown at a very fast pace over the last few years.

[1]According to the latest data released by Department of Policy and Promotion (DIPP) the FDI inflow during 2008-09 (from April 2008 to March 2009) stood at approx. US$ 27.3 billion. It is interesting to note here that as per an UNCTAD study –‘Assessing the impact of the current financial and economic crisis on global FDI flows’ India achieved a substantial 85.1 per cent increase in FDI flows in calendar year 2008—the highest increase across all countries—even as global flows declined by 14.5 per cent.

Needless to say, but FDI inflows has evidently proved to be very advantageous for the overall development of the Indian economy and inter alia has resulted in increased capital flow, improved technology, notable management expertise and favourable access to international markets.

It is to be noted that FDI in India is liberally allowed in all sectors including the services sector, except a few sectors where FDI is either absolutely forbidden on the grounds of national interest, or, other sectors where the existing and notified sectoral policy does not permit FDI beyond a ceiling. Moreover, FDI for all the permissible items/activities can be brought in through the Automatic Route under powers delegated to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and for the remaining items/activities through Government approval, which is accorded on the recommendation of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).

[2]Further, it is to be noted that India’s FDI Policy allows for investment only in the following form of investments, namely, through financial alliance, or through joint schemes and technical alliance, or through capital markets, via Euro issues or/ and through private placements or preferential allotments.

It is submitted that FDI Restrictions in Indian Sectors have been imposed on a few sectors by the Indian government. The various Indian Sectors having restrictions of foreign direct investment are atomic energy, nidhi company, betting and gambling, chit fund business, plantation or agricultural activities, real estate business, business in transferable development rights, lottery business, retail trading ,railway transport, mining of chrome, zinc, gold, diamonds, copper, iron, gypsum, manganese, and sulfur and ammunition and arms.

FDI Restrictions in Indian Sectors have been imposed in order to protect the interests of the country, as these sectors either relate to national security or sensitive enough to keep apart the foreign companies. Foreign direct investment restrictions in Indian sectors have also been imposed in order to allow the domestic companies to make more profits with less competition, than that of in the presence of rivalry international firms.

It is submitted that while in some sectors the restrictions imposed by the government are comprehensible; the restrictions imposed in few others, including the retail sector, are utterly baseless and are acting as shackles in the progressive development of that particular sector and eventually the overall development of the Indian Inc.

Now coming to the captioned topic of FDI in the Indian retail sector, it is submitted that the scenario of the same is kind of depressing and unappealing, since despite the ongoing wave of incessant liberalization and globalization, the Indian retail sector is still aloof from progressive and ostentatious development. This dismal situation of the retail sector undoubtedly stems from the absence of an FDI encouraging policy in the Indian retail sector.

However, it needs to be noted here that unfortunately this dismal situation is there to exist, especially in the light of the recent developments – in terms of the abrupt change in the ideology of the political parties filing the Parliament.

Before highlighting the anticipated future of the Indian retail sector in light of the recent unfavourable developments, it would be worthwhile to first briefly take into consideration the existing scenario of FDI in the Indian retail sector and the Indian retail market in general.

The FDI scenario in the buzzing Indian retail sector

It is submitted that retail trading in India constitutes as one of those few sectors where FDI is not freely and healthily allowed. Although, FDI is fully admissible in ‘cash and carry’ wholesale (back-end retail), it is admissible only up to 51 per cent in single-brand front-end retail.

Importantly, there is a complete ban on foreign investment in multi-brand, front-end retail. This has resulted in keeping all the giant corporate – backed retailers of the world like Walmart (USA), Carrefour (France), Tesco (UK), and Metro (Germany), who are very keen to foray into India’s retail sector, away from entering into the country. All of these retailers, therefore, to make their presence felt  in the country, have either tied-up or trying to tie-up with local corporates, to offer their services for back-end operations like sourcing, logistics, inventory management, among others, for front-end, multi-brand retail operations of such corporates.

[3]The retail industry in India is of late often being hailed as one of the sunrise sectors in the economy. AT Kearney, the well-known international management consultancy, recently identified India as the ‘second most attractive retail destination’ globally from among thirty emergent markets. It has made India the cause of a good deal of excitement and the cynosure of many foreign investors’ eyes. With a contribution of an overwhelming 14% to the national GDP and employing 7% of the total workforce (only agriculture employs more) in the country, the retail industry is definitely one of the pillars of the Indian economy.

[4]The Indian retail sector is very different from that of the developed countries. In the developed countries, products and services normally reach consumers from the manufacturer/producers through two different channels: (a) via independent retailers (‘vertical separation’) and (b) directly from the producer (‘vertical integration’). In the latter case, the producers establish their own chains of retail outlets, or develop franchises. 

On the other hand, Indian retail industry is divided into organised and unorganised sectors. Organised retailing refers to trading activities undertaken by licensed retailers, that is, those who are registered for sales tax, income tax, etc. These include the corporate-backed supermarkets and retail chains, and also the privately owned giant retail businesses. Unorganised retailing, on the other hand, refers to the traditional formats of low-cost retailing, for example, the local kirana shops, owner manned general stores, paan/beedi shops, convenience stores, hand cart and pavement vendors, etc.Unorganized retailing is by far the prevalent form of trade in India – constituting 98% of total trade, while organised trade accounts only for the remaining 2% – and this is projected to increase to 15-20 per cent by 2010.

[5] Needless to say, the Indian retail sector is overwhelmingly swarmed by the unorganized retailing with the dominance of small and medium enterprises in contradiction to the presence of few giant corporate retailing outlets. The trading sector is also highly fragmented, with a large number of intermediaries who operate at a strictly local level and there is no ‘barrier to entry’, given the structure and scale of these operations.

Moreover, the retail sector also acts as an important employment absorber for the present social system. Thus, when a factory shuts down rendering workers jobless; or peasants find themselves idle during part of the year or get evicted from their land; or the stagnant manufacturing sector fails to absorb the fresh entrants into the job market, the retail sector absorbs them all.

According to the Investment Commission of India, the retail sector is expected to grow almost three times its current levels to $660 billion by 2015. It is expected that India will be among the top 5 retail markets then. The organized sector is expected to grow to $100 bn and account for 12-15% of retail sales by 2015.

 [6]According to Subha Kalathur, analyst at Valuenotes, there is certainly a lucrative opportunity for foreign players to enter the Indian terrain. Growth rates of the industry both in the past and those expected for the next decade coupled with the changing consumer trends such as increased use of credit cards, brand consciousness, and the growth of population under the age of 35 are factors that encourage a foreign player to establish outlets in India. However, it is not out of place to mention here that the government policies towards FDI are the only hindering factors that do not make this a fairy tale for foreign players.

The recent developments contemplating a sea change in the Indian retail sector

[7]The history has witnessed that the concern of allowing unrestrained FDI flows in the retail sector has never been free from controversies and simultaneously has been an issue for unsuccessful deliberation ever since the advent of FDI in India. Where on one hand there has been a strong outcry for the unrestricted flow of FDI in the retail trading by the ruling UPA government and by an overwhelming number of both domestic and as well as foreign corporate retail giants; to the contrary, the Left wing along with the critics of unrestrained FDI have always fiercely retorted by highlighting the adverse impact, the FDI in the retail trading will have on the unorganized retail trade, which is the source of employment to an enormous amount of the population of India.

However, it is to be noted that lately there has been an remarkable surge in the demand for the liberalization of the Indian retail sector both  by at the domestic and as well as at the international front and it seems that the government is giving the matter a very pensive and careful consideration. Some of the factors that have contributed to this trend are the evident profits in the ever growing but conserved Indian retails sector, reduction in tariff, cheaper real time communications, and cheaper transport. The main reasons for such an unequivocal demand stems from the realisation that (i) while the retail sector requires heavy investment for expansion, there is hardly any local capital left in the capital markets as a consequence of global financial meltdown, and (ii) efficient management of multi-brand, multi-product, multi location retail, especially in the area of back-end operations, require heavy dose of technology, which over the years has been developed and perfected by foreign players.

In wake of relentless protests for the opening up of the Indian retail market for the reception of unrestrained FDI, the Investment Commission in July, 2006, suggested that 49% FDI be allowed in the Indian retail sector without any restrictions on the number of outlets or location of stores. The Indian retail boom and the Investment Commission’s suggestions renewed the debate on the issue of allowing FDI in the retail sector. The Commission opined that that foreign investment would help in improving the retail and supply chain infrastructure, and generate large-scale employment in the country. In addition, the Indian retailers could absorb some of the best operational practices of these international retailers and gain in experience. Ultimately, the consumers would benefit due to the availability of more product offerings, lower prices, and efficient service.

[8]The recommendations of the Investment Commission proved to be very promising and paved the way for a positive feedback by then ruling UPA government and also the BJP government on the issue of liberalization of the retail sector. It is interesting to note that Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh while speaking on the occasion of the mid term appraisal of the Tenth Five Year Plan of the Government announced that his Government has been considering permitting FDI in retail sector ostensibly to attain the target of employment generation.

[9]Moreover, the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) drafted a report which suggested that the opening up of the FDI regime should be gradual—over a 3 to 5 year timeframe – to give the domestic industry enough time to adjust to the changes. In the initial stage FDI up to 49 per cent should be allowed which can be raised to 100 per cent in 3 to 5 years (depending on the growth of the sector). FDI cap below 49 per cent (i.e., 26 per cent) would not bring in the desired foreign investment collaboration

[10].Furthermore, very lately in her address to Parliament in June, 2009, President Pratibha Patil, had said, “Our country has benefited from large foreign investment flows in recent years. These flows, especially FDI, need to be encouraged through an appropriate policy regime”.

[11]However, unfortunately the issue still remains nebulous; with only evident positive thinking on part of the government and with no final affirmative or negative decision on the same whatsoever.

The Parliamentary Committee’s Big Bang Theory

[12]Amidst the hope for the liberalization of the retail sector and the expectation for a promising decision by the present UPA government on the issue of according unrestrained reception to FDI in retail trading without any restrictions on the number of brands, outlets or location of stores; the parliamentary standing committee on commerce on 8^th June, 2009, while presenting a picture of gloom, recommended a blanket ban on domestic corporate and foreign retailers from entering retail trade and also suggested restrictions to bar organized retail firms from setting up malls and selling other consumer products.

The 42 – member panel, headed by BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi, has, as reported in the Economic Times Article, cautioned that allowing organized players, domestic and as well as foreign, to enter retail trade would result in the destruction of the economic foundation of the small retail supply chain. Moreover, the parliamentary committee has also suggested putting in place a regulation, a National Shopping Mall Regulation Act, to ensure that cartelization dos not take place, and regulate the fiscal and social aspects of the retail sector.

The committee observed that Consumers’ welfare would be sidelined, as the big retail giants by adopting a predatory pricing policy would fix lower price initially, tempting the consumers. After wiping out competition from local retailers, the big retailers would be in a monopolistic position and would be able to dictate prices, the panel said. It also said that procurement centers constituted by big corporates for making direct bulk purchases would initially pay attractive prices to farmers and cause gradual extinction of `mandis’ and regulated market yards.

The rationale advocated by the panel in shackling the liberalization of the Indian retail sector is that according to government accounts, the total retail business is of the order of rupees 12,00,000 crore, which is roughly one – third of the country’s GDP. Of this, 95% is accounted for by the unorganized sector. Moreover, the panel also harped that retail is the largest manpower employer in the country after agriculture and unorganized retail accounts for 8% of total employment, i.e., more than 40 million persons. The committee, therefore, concluded that in allowing the establishment of giant corporate – backed retail stores would result not only in the annihilation of the unorganized retail sector, but would ultimately result in unemployment of the masses and simultaneously would also cause serious disruption to the healthy contributions to GDP .

The panel also contended “in order to counter the adverse effects of corporate retail, there is an urgent need to design a legal and regulatory framework along with an enforcement mechanism that would ensure that the large retailers are not able to displace the small retailers by unfair means”.

Further, the panel concluded that the provision of FDI retail in single brand is not strictly adhered to and is in reality flouted. The panel opined that the shops in malls are selling other branded items along with the brands for which they got permission.

In addition to the above the committee also criticized the established of the cash – carry stores by foreign corporate retailers like Wal–Mart and METRO Group and in its report entitled “Foreign and Domestic Investment in Retail Sector”, suggested that the government should stop issuing further licenses for cash – and –carry, either to transnational retailers or to a combination of transnational retailers and the Indian partner as it is “a camouflage for doing retail trade through the back door”.

It is to be noted that the world leading retailer Wal-Mart was very eager to open a retail chain throughout India. The retail giant did everything possible so that the Government of India becomes inclined to liberalize FDI in retail sector. In February 2002, the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, opened a global sourcing office in Bangalore. In November 2006, it announced its entry under a joint venture with the Indian corporation Bharti

[13]. However, all attempts proved to be futile and the giant retail MNC finally settled up with the establishment of a cash – carry outlet in Amritsar on June 6, 2009. Such stores don’t sell to end-users, but to retailers and middlemen. This is the only format under which foreign retail chains are allowed in India. It is submitted that at present, 100% FDI is permitted under automatic route in the wholesale cash – and carry trading.

Critical analysis of the ongoing events affecting the future of Indian retail sector

It is submitted that though the recommendation of the panel are not binding upon the Government; the same have outrageously done the intended harm. In other words, the direct result of the media hype of the recommendations of the Panel was the abrupt stoppage of all the progressive investment plans of various corporate giants all across the globe, who were desirous of investing an irresistible amount of capital in the Indian markets, in order to establish their brand name.

According to Shalini Thukral, Retail Merchandise Manager, Primetex Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Indian retail may lose FDI of up to Rs 400 crore (Rs 4 billion) this fiscal because of recommendations by the Parliamentary Panel on Commerce, which has opposed further leeway to the entry of international retail brands in the country.

[14]Unfortunately, the iconic $ 31-billion Scandinavian home products giant, IKEA, has put on hold its plans to set up 25 showrooms across the country foreign investment of around $ 1 billion. In an internal communication this week, IKEA told its stakeholders that Indian investment rules do not encourage it to go ahead with its investment plans — at least not in the near future.

[15]Moreover, Carrefour, Cartier, Armani, Tesco and UK-based Curry’s and Sports Direct International could also be some of the foreign retail players to cut down their investment in India following the government’s FDI policy on retail, observes Shalini Thukral, Retail Merchandise Manager, Primetex Clothing Pvt. Ltd

.[16]The ban is even extended to the big domestic corporate heavyweights retailers like Reliance, Bharti, Aditya Birla Group owned ‘More’ and Pantaloons Group owned ‘Big Bazaar’ to trade in grocery, fruits and vegetables. That would rule of Reliance Fresh from the Reliance stable and Bharti’s cash and carry stores.

Thus, it is to be noted that even though no decision has been taken by the government on the recommendations given by the panel; the direct ramifications of the recommendations have been evident considerable loss of FDI, managerial expertise, and jobs for the Indian retail industry along with sacrifice of the consumer’s interest and welfare.

Economic Survey 2008 – 2009 still keeps the hope alive

[17]It is interesting to note here that in contradiction to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee’s, the present UPA government has, as reflected in the Economic Survey 2008-09, which was tabled by the Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee in the Parliament on 2^nd July, 2009, raised hopes of all those who are looking for a favourable response of the government on the subject. While, the Economic Survey has made a strong case for opening up the FDI for multi-brand retail, it has recommended a gradual opening of the sector. Improving the investment environment would require “FDI in multi-format retail, starting with food retailing,” said the Survey, adding that initially the FDI could be allowed subject to the setting up a modern logistics system, perhaps jointly with other organised retailers. “A condition could also be put that it must have (for five years say) wholesale outlets where small, unorganised retailers can also purchase items (to facilitate transition),” added the Survey.

It is to be noted that the recommendations made in the Survey do provide direction to the government’s thinking on the subject. “It is a welcome suggestion and will help the Indian retail sector grow, by leading to inflow of money from overseas brands,” said Kishore Biyani, Chief Executive Officer, Future Group, to PTI. Moreover, according to Biyani, FDI will ensure a bigger playing field and sustained competition, resulting in reduction of prices for the consumer. He, however, recommended fixing a certain threshold investment for entering into the sector.

[18]Spencer’s Retail, the retail arm of RPG Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of group company Calcutta Electric Supply Company, also welcomed the Survey’s recommendation.“We view it in favourable light. There is enough room in the Indian retail sector for everybody to grow and FDI will bring about competitiveness between Indian and foreign players,” a Spencer’s Retail spokesperson said.

[19]Most modern (organised) retailers, who have been asking for removal of ban on FDI in retail, were excited with the recommendation made by the Survey in its report. However, unfortunately the recommendations embodied in the Economic Survey are not binding on the Parliament and the issue of the liberalization of the Indian retail market, in terms of unrestrained FDI in the retail trading, still needs a decisive affirmation by the Parliament in order to morph as a rule of law. Till then the issue will hang as a sword over the head of the government and would certainly act as a barrier to the healthy development of the Indian retail markets in terms of dearth of enormous amount of FDI and the lack of resultant healthy competition between the major organized retail sector giants.

Conclusion

It is submitted that the antagonists of FDI in retail sector oppose the same on various grounds, like, that the entry of large global retailers such as Wal-Mart would kill local shops and millions of jobs, since the unorganized retail sector employs an enormous percentage of Indian population after the agriculture sector; secondly that the global retailers would conspire and exercise monopolistic power to raise prices and monopolistic (big buying) power to reduce the prices received by the suppliers; thirdly, it would lead to asymmetrical growth in cities, causing discontent and social tension elsewhere. Hence, both the consumers and the suppliers would lose, while the profit margins of such retail chains would go up.

However, it can be said that the advantages of allowing unrestrained FDI in the retail sector evidently outweigh the disadvantages attached to it and the same can be deduced from the examples of successful experiments in countries like Thailand and China; where too the issue of allowing FDI in the retail sector was first met with incessant protests, but later turned out to be one of the most promising political and economical decisions of their governments and led not only to the commendable rise in the level of employment but also led to the enormous development of their country’s GDP.

It is to be noted that FDI in retail would undoubtedly enable Indian Inc to integrate its economy with that of the global economy. Reference in this regard can also be made to the laudatory words of Prof. Gan Bhukta, Professor of Marketing, GITAM Institute of Foreign Trade, India, who has very aptly stated in his article entitled “Optimizing Youth Employment Through FDI in Retail in India” that “FDI will help to overcome both – the lack of experience in organized retailing as well as lack of trained manpower. FDI in retail would reduce cost of intermediation and entail setting up of integrated supply chains that would minimize wastage, give producers a better price and benefit both producers and consumers. From the stand point of consumers, organized retailing would help reduce the problem of adulteration, short weighing and substandard goods.”

Moreover, it is submitted that in the fierce battle between the advocators and antagonist of unrestrained FDI flows in the Indian retail sector, the interests of the consumers have been blatantly and utterly disregarded. Therefore, one of the arguments which inevitably needs to be considered and addressed while deliberating upon the captioned issue is the interests of consumers at large in relation to the interests of retailers.

It is also pertinent to note here that it can be safely contended that with the possible advent of unrestrained FDI flows in retail market, the interests of the retailers constituting the unorganized retail sector will not be gravely undermined, since nobody can force a consumer to visit a mega shopping complex or a small retailer/ sabji mandi. Consumers will shop in accordance with their utmost convenience, where ever they get the lowest price, max variety, and a good consumer experience. Moreover, it is to be noted that the small retailers will still remain in good business owing to the fact of their convenient location near the residential societies and to the fact of the distant location of the mega stores and malls.

From this point of view, it can inter alia be concluded that the interest of the consumers should take precedence over the interest of the retailer and consequently healthy flow of FDI in retail should be permitted. 

Further, it would be worthwhile to list down certain advantages from the point of view of consumers which will inevitably flow from the establishment and development of larger stores and supermarkets:

In their article entitled “FDI in Retailing – Is it the need of the hour?” L. Dhamayanthi and S. Pradeep Kumar, MBA students of School of Management, Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology, have categorically stated that FDI will not just provide access to larger financial resources for investment in the retail sector but simultaneously will rationally allow larger supermarkets, which tend to become regional and national chains – (i) to negotiate prices more aggressively with manufacturers of consumer goods and thus pass on the benefit to consumers; and (ii) to lay down better and tighter quality standards and ensure that manufacturers adhere to them.

It is also to be noted that consumer goods manufacturers generally prefer supermarkets since they not just offer a wide range of their (manufacturers) products and services, so the consumer can enjoy single-point shopping, but simultaneously they by their attractive presentation and tempting retailing strategies also account for an increasing share of consumer product sales. Also, the fact that a well-known chain of supermarkets procures its goods from a known manufacturer becomes a stamp of quality. Moreover, with the availability of free flow of finance in conjunction with advent of healthy inflow of FDI, the supermarkets will be in a better position than small retailers to make shopping a pleasant experience by making investments in much needed infrastructure facilities like parking lots, coffee shops, ATM machines, etc.

Apart from this, by allowing FDI in retail trade, India will significantly flourish in terms of quality standards and consumer expectations, since the inflow of FDI in retail sector is bound to pull up the quality standards and cost-competitiveness of Indian producers in all the segments. It is therefore obvious that we should not only permit but encourage FDI in retail trade.

Lastly, it is to be noted that the Indian Council of Research in International Economic Relations (ICRIER), a premier economic think tank of the country, which was appointed to look into the impact of BIG capital in the retail sector, has projected the worth of Indian retail sector to reach $496 billion by 2011-12 and ICRIER has also come to conclusion that investment of ‘big’ money (large corporates and FDI) in the retail sector would in the long run not harm interests of small, traditional, retailers.

[20]In light of the above, it can be safely concluded that allowing healthy FDI in the retail sector would not only lead to a substantial surge in the country’s GDP and overall economic development, but would inter alia also help in integrating the Indian retail market with that of the global retail market in addition to providing not just employment but a better paying employment, which the unorganized sector (kirana and other small time retailing shops) have undoubtedly failed to provide to the masses employed in them.

Thus, as a matter of fact FDI in the buzzing Indian retail sector should not just be freely allowed but per contra should be significantly encouraged.

By:

Sarthak Sarin

V Year, BBA.LLB

Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Sarthaksarin@gmail.com

¹ Forms of Foreign Capital Flowing into India, available at http://business.mapsofindia.com/fipb/forms-foreign-capital-flowing.html, last visited 24^th April, 2009

[2]  For an extensive reading on for what items/activities, the FDI is permitted under Automatic Route or through the Government approval; reference can be made to the Manual on the FDI in India, May – 2003, published by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, and available at http://dipp.nic.in/manual/manual_0403.pdf., last visited 26^th April 2009.

[3]  Indian Retail Biz, Economic Survey recommends opening of retail to foreign investment (FDI); suggests making beginning with ‘food’ segment, available at http://www.indiaretailbiz.com/blog/2009/07/02, last visited 24^th April, 2009

[4]  Singhal, Arvind, Indian Retail: The road ahead, Retail biz, available at www.etretailbiz.com, last visited 24^th  

   April 2009

[5]  Singhal, Arvind, Technopak Projections, 1999, Changing Retail Landscape, www.ksa-technopak.com.

[6]  Opportunity India: Retail Sector, available at      http://www.valuenotes.com/VNTeam/vn_investRetailSector_18oct06.asp?ArtCd=103512&Cat=I&Id=, last visited 25^th April, 2009.

[7]  Ibid

[8]  Business Insights International, Foreign Direct Investment in the Indian Retail Sector, available at http://www.businessinsights.biz/Business%20Insights%20International/Business%20Updates/Foreign%20Direct%20Investment%20in%20the%20Indian%20Retail%20Sector.htm, last visited 24^th April, 2009

[9]  Swadesh Dev Roye, No to FDI in Retail, No to Wal-Mart, available at

    http://indiafdiwatch.org/fileadmin/WARNstorage/NoFDI.pdf, last visited

[10] Dr. Mukherjee Arpita, Ms. Patel Nitisha, Report on FDI in Retail Sector: India, available at

    http://www.icrier.org/conference/2006/14july_05.html, last visited

[11] See The Times of India article entitled “House panel applies brake on FDI in retail”, June 6, 2009.

[12] The Economic Times article entitled “House panel for ‘no entry’ to corporates in retail”, June 6, 2009

[13]  Dey Dipankar , FDI in India’s Retail Trade: Some Additional Issues, available at  http://www.rupe-india.org/43/retail.html , last visited

[14]  FDI in Fashion Industry, available at http://toostep.com/debate/fdi-in-fashion-industry, last visited

[15]  See The Times of India article entitled “IKEA drops investment plans in India worth $1bn, 11^th June, 2009

[16]  FDI in Fashion Industry, available at http://toostep.com/debate/fdi-in-fashion-industry, last visited

[17] India Retail Biz, Allowing FDI in retail will enlarge scope, bring fresh capital, and increase competition, say

    industry leaders, welcoming Eco Survey, available at http://www.indiaretailbiz.com/blog/2009/07/02, last visited

    26^th April, 2009

[18] Ibid

[19] Ibid

[20]  India Retail Biz, Allowing FDI in retail will enlarge scope, bring fresh capital, and increase competition, say

     industry leaders, welcoming Eco Survey, available at http://www.indiaretailbiz.com/blog/2009/07/02, last visited

     26^th April, 2009

Counterfeiting is the passing off action of the genuine products to customers. Such products are sold under the famous establishing and manufacturing. This is nothing but the cheating consumer and running parallel operation. Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) come in hand of passing off action. The statute governing IPRs recognizing such activity as an offence and provide for stringent punishment such as counterfeiting activity. Counterfeiting activity remind us the large scale of counterfeiting in currency. Reserve Bank of India with the help of the statutory provision catches such offenders and brings them to prosecution under the Panel provision.

1. 2.    COUNTERFEITING : HOW IT IS DONE

Counterfeit products may include[i]

i)                    products with correct ingredients, but containing insufficient or erroneous   quantities of active ingredients, or expired active ingredients either to save cost or owing to poor quality control factors;

ii)                  wrong ingredients with possibly toxic elements and impurities and therefore directly harmful to patients;

iii)                without active ingredients or using similar class of cheaper ingredients to escape detection; 

iv)                produced by unhygienic manufacture, or lack of rigorous cleaning between production batches; or

v)                  products with false or misleading packaging.

The Standard of Weight and measure (packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 were enacted to regulates the use of correct weighing and measuring instruments in production, trade and commerce to ensure that exact weight, measure and number of any commodity is provided to any customer as contracted for. It also protects the consumers’ benefits by assuring compulsory declarations on packaged commodities. The Standards of Weights &Measures Act 1956 was the first Act which enacted based on metric system and international system of units recognized by OIML – International Organization of legal metrology in order to provide uniform standards of Weights & Measures.

The Rules have tried to make the manufacturer and traders to be responsible for producing and importing the commodities. Every package kept, offered for sale or sold, shall bear conspicuously on it, the name and complete address of the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer is not the packer, the name and address of the manufacturer and the packer and in case of imported packages, the name and address of the importer. The complete and clear address shall mean the postal address at which the registered office of the manufacturer is situated or the factory is situated so that a consumer can identify and locate the manufacturer or packer.

In case any products manufactured outside India but packed in India, the package shall also display the complete name and complete address of the packer or the importer in India. The name of the manufacturer or packer or importer shall be the actual corporate name, or if not incorporated, the name under which the business is conducted by such manufacturer or packer or importer in India. Also the rules further restrict the application of individual stickers or labels on the package for altering or making any declaration as may be required under the Rules.

COUNTERFEITING IN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

At the moment the WHO definition reads as follows:

“A counterfeit medicine is one which is deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to identity and/or source. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products and counterfeit products may include products with the correct ingredients or with the wrong ingredients, without active ingredients, with insufficient (inadequate quantities of) active ingredient(s) or with fake packaging.“

A counterfeit drug or a counterfeit medicine is a medication or pharmaceutical product which is produced and sold with the intent to deceptively represent its origin, authenticity or effectiveness at least to some level. Some examples of types of counterfeit drugs include:

1 On the products’ labels the specified active ingredients has not been contained as such as it is declared.

2 The active ingredient which has shown on the labels is different from what is contained in the product itself.

3 Products which contain the correct strength of the specified active ingredients but whose source is different to the one declared.

4 Products which contain the specified active ingredients but in strengths different to those declared; they may also contain different or different quantities of impurities.

Counterfeit medicines are part of the broader phenomenon of substandard pharmaceuticals. Substandard medicines are those products which the composition and ingredients do not meet the correct scientific specifications and which are thus ineffective and causing dangerous to the patients. There are many reasons to make the substandard products may occur as a result of negligence, human error, insufficient human and financial resources or counterfeiting. The difference is that they are deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to identity and/or source. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products and counterfeit medicines may include products with the correct ingredients but fake packaging, with the wrong ingredients, without active ingredients or with insufficient active ingredients. A Spurious drug may or may not have ingredients with therapeutic use while Counterfeit drug may comply with quality standard while imitating popular brands.

According to Dr BR Jagashetty, Karnataka Drugs Controller Currently, there is no definition for counterfeit drugs as far as India is concerned. However, the Drugs & Cosmetics Act only carries definitions of spurious, misbranded and adulterated drugs under Section 17 for the domestic market and Section 9 for imports. However there is still the ambiguity on the definition of adulterated and spurious,

The market circle of counterfeit medicines has made the huge profitable business due to high demand and low production costs. The lack of the stringent legislation in many countries also encourages counterfeiters since there is no fear of being apprehended and prosecuted. When prices of medicines are high and price differentials between identical products exist there is a greater motivating for the consumer to seek medicines outside the normal supply system.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ON SOFTWARE

Form of Piracy[ii]

Software piracy is defined as an act of unauthorized copying or loading or distribution of copyrighted software in violation of the end user of the end user license agreement. There are four forms of software piracy; end user piracy, counterfeiting, channel piracy, internet piracy.

-         End user piracy means an end user such as an organization, company, or educational institution uses entirely unlicensed software or software in excess of the licensed purchase.

-         Counterfeiting means it involves the making of the exact replicas of the CDs or DVDs of the original software along with holograms, trademarks, packaging, instruction manuals, and certificate of authenticity. The price of the counterfeit products mostly cheaper than the original one.

-         Channel piracy involves the sale of loose CDs or DVDs on which software program has been burnt. These CDs or DVDs are not lookalikes of the original software CDs; neither are they accompanied by an end user license agreement or a certificate of the authenticity. They are sold at a price which is considerably lower than the original software price.

-         Internet piracy the Internet is used as a means to sell, distribute and advertised unlicensed software programs. This can be done in a number of ways such as through bulletin boards, auction sites, peer to peer networks, blogs and other commercial website.

Counterfeiting includes producing the duplicates of the original CDs or DVDs of the original, along with holograms, trademarks, packaging, instruction manuals and certificates of authenticity. The counterfeit product can be bought by the consumers at a lower price than the original product itself. To give the clarification on what can be called as infringement; Section 51 of the Copyright Act contemplates the various acts that amount to infringement of copyright vested with the owner. Also Section 53 restricts the importation of copies which would infringe copyright.

INFRINGEMENT UNDER TRADEMARK LAW

If we look into the provisions under Indian Trademark Act, 1999, under Section 29 has provided the definition of the infringement, however, there is nowhere in the Act which has referred to the definition of the counterfeit. Nevertheless if we look into US Trademark Act, it has been mentioned the definition of both the infringement and counterfeit and from that we can come to know the difference between the “counterfeit” and “infringement”. All counterfeit marks are infringing.  Infringing marks also include a broader class of marks that are “confusingly similar” to genuine marks while counterfeit marks include marks that are “substantially indistinguishable” from a genuine mark, this definition contemplates only minor or trivial differences from the genuine mark.  The “confusingly similar” test for infringing marks contemplates wider differences.

Counterfeit goods has been defined that without authorization of the trademark right’s holder the products, packaging has been imitated which cannot be distinguished the essential feature of the goods itself from the genuine one. Counterfeit goods also include packaging materials, stickers, brochures and instructions even though these are presented separately from the goods themselves.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Under Patent law regime, a patentee has been conferred the exclusive right to make, distribute or sell the invention in India. An infringement would be happened when any of those rights are violated. A patentee may assign license all or some of these rights and it will not amount o infringement if the assignee or licensee exercise such patent rights. In case of a product patents rights of the patentee are infringed by anyone who makes or supplies that substance commercially. In case of a process patent, the use of such a method or process in India by anyone other than the patentee amounts to infringement.

To consider whether anyone other than the patentee has done which amounts to infringement or not would depend upon:

v  The extent of the monopoly right conferred by the patent which is interpreted from the specification and claims contained in the application of the patentee. Any action which falls outside the scope of the claims would not amount to infringement.

v  Whether he is infringing any of the monopoly rights in the patentee to make, or sell the invention.

1. 3.    REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTs

Remedies available to Copyright

CIVIL ACTION: When some person has evidence to prove that his copyright has been infringed, he can bring a civil action against person responsible for such infringement, for compensation and other remedies. Under Section 55 the remedies can be damages to compensate the loss due to infringement or/and injunction prohibiting person infringing from continuing to infringe the copyright.

CRIMINAL ACTION: Some infringements are criminal offences also. As far as computer software is concerned, it is an offence in many countries to make an infringing copy to sell and also to advertise the supply of such programme. Section 64 empowers the police to seize all counterfeit software copies, while Section 63 provides for imprisonment of up to three years and fines of up to Rs200, 000 in case of infringement or abatement. Hence people indulging in software privacy are available for both civil and criminal actions[iii].

Also Section 11 of the Customs Act empowers the customs officials to prohibit the importation and exportation of goods in order to protect copyrights and trademarks. In addition, a new customs recordal system has been introduced through the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules 2007 to strengthen border enforcement with the objective of preventing the entry of counterfeit goods into the country.

Remedies available to trademark

The Trademarks Act provides remedies not only for the infringement of a registered trademark but also gives remedy of passing off to protect against infringement of an unregistered trademark. Section 27(2) recognizes the common law remedy of passing off against any person dealing in counterfeit goods. Section 29 mentions the definition of infringement of a registered trademark which includes unauthorized use by a person of a mark which because of its identity or similarity with the registered trademark and use in respect of identical or similar goods is likely to cause confusion on the part public or which is likely to have an association with the registered trademark. Section 135 provides for civil remedies in case of either infringement or passing off. These remedies include injunction, damages, delivery up and rendition of accounts.

Under Trademark Act, 1999 has defined counterfeiting in terms of “falsification” and “false application” of a trademark. According to Section 102 of the Act, “a person shall be deemed to falsify the trademark who either makes that trademark or a deceptive similar mark, or falsifies any genuine trademark, by alteration, addition, effacement or otherwise”. Similarly false application of trademark on goods or packages containing goods, other than genuine goods and including use of any package bearing the said trademark for packing, filling or wrapping, spurious goods. Section 103 provides for criminal remedies such as imprisonment of up to three years and fines of up to Rs200, 000 (around $5,000) in case of counterfeiting. Counterfeit in India is cognizable offence. The occurrence or likelihood of occurrence of an offence can be directly reported to a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent or to the Intellectual Property Cells of police in cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Bangalore[iv].

Remedies available to Patent

Under the Indian Patent Act, the right of the patentee has been protected. If the monopoly rights of the patentee are violated, his rights are secured by the Act through judicial intervention. The patentee has to institute a suit for infringement. The relief’s which may be awarded in such a suit are Interlocutory/ interim injunction, Damages or account of profits, Permanent injunction.

Section 104 of the Act provides that a suit for infringement shall not be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. In appropriate cases where the High Court has original jurisdiction to try the suit, the suit shall be instituted in the High Court when an action for infringement has been instituted in a District Court and the defendants make a counter claim for revocation of the patents, the suit is transferred to the High Court for decision because High Court has the jurisdiction to try cases of revocation. Section 104A provides for burden of proof in case of suits concerning infringement. The procedure followed in conducting a suit for infringement is governed by the provisions of code of civil procedure[v].

Only the person who has a right in the patent can institute a suit for infringement. The following persons are entitled to sue:-

(1) The patentee.

(2) The exclusive licensee if the license is registered.

(3) A compulsory licensee when the patentee refuses or neglects to institute proceedings.

(4) A licensee other than the above two licensees can bring an action for infringement upon the terms of the contract between the licensor and licensee.

(5) Assignee, he can sue only after the application for registration of the assignment in his favour has been filed. If a patent is assigned after the commencement of action, the assignee is to be joined as a co-plaintiff. An assignee cannot sue for infringement which occurred prior to assignment.

A suit for infringement can be instituted only after the patent has been sealed. When a specification has been accepted and published i.e., during the period when opposition has been called and is being decided, the applicants cannot institute a suit for infringement. However the damages maintained due to the infringement, committed during the period i.e., between the date of publication of acceptance of complete specification and the date of grant may be claimed in another suit; a separate suit for damages but not suit for infringement. Also a suit can be instituted during the term of even after the expiry of the term even when the term of the patent has expired and infringement occurred during the term of such patent, In case a patent had lapsed and was subsequently restored, committed between the date on which the patent ceased to have effect and the date of publication of application for restoration. When a patent was obtained wrongfully by a person and later granted to the true and first Inventor, no suit for infringement can be instituted for any infringement occurring before the period of such grant to the true and first inventor. Court will issue the notice to the defendant (infringer) so there is no need as such for a person who institutes as such to give the notice to the infringer. Moreover the period a limitation for instituting a suit for patent infringement is three years from the date of infringement.

1. 4.    INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT WITH THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 AND PROCEDURE UNDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IMPORTED GOODS) ENFORCEMENT RULE, 2007

Customs Act, 1962 prohibits import of goods that infringe intellectual property. Section 11 of the Act empowers the Central Government, for the purposes specified in subsection 11(2), to prohibit import or export of goods of any description by issuing a notification. Section 11(2) (n) read with Section 11(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to prohibit import or export of goods for the protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights. Section 11(2) (u) covers prohibition for the prevention of the contravention of any law for the time being in force. Section 111 and 113 of the Act empowers the Customs to confiscate improperly imported and exported goods respectively.

There have been attempts in the past by the Central Government to issue notifications under Section 11 of the Act and prohibit import of goods that infringe intellectual property. The Central Government issued a notification in 1960 prohibiting export – through sea and land – of goods that attract Section 78 and 117 of the Trade Marks Act, 1968. Another notification was issued in 1964 which prohibited goods bearing false trade mark, false trade description and goods passing off a trademark.

On May 8, 2007, the Central Government vide Notification No. 49/2007-Customs (N.T.), prohibited the import of the following goods, subject to conditions and procedures as specified in the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules,2007, namely[vi]:-

1. goods having applied thereto a false trade mark as specified in Section 102 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999;
2. goods having applied thereto a false trade description within the meaning of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999;
3. goods made or produced beyond the limits of India and intended for sale, and having applied thereto a design in which copyright exists under the Designs Act, 2000;
4. the product made or produced beyond the limits of India and intended for sale for which a patent is in force under the Patents Act,1970;
5. the product obtained directly by the process made or produced beyond the limits of India and intended for sale, where patent for such process is in force under the Patents Act 1970;
6. goods having applied thereto a false Geographical Indication within the meaning of Section 38 of Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999;
7. goods which are prohibited to be imported by issuance of an order issued by Registrar of Copyrights under Section 53 of the Copyright Act,1957.

The Central Government also notified ‘Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007′ on the same date. The rules were notified with a view to strengthen the statutory and executive guidelines provided for the protection of intellectual property rights at the borders.

Under the rules, an intellectual property right holder may give notice in writing to the Commissioner of Customs or any Customs officer authorized in this behalf by the Commissioner, requesting for suspension of clearance of goods suspected to be infringing intellectual property rights. Such notice shall be given in the format prescribed in the Annexure to the Rules and all the information required in the notice should be furnished within 15 days.

Such notice should be registered or rejected within 30 working days of the date of receipt of the notice or date of expiry of extended 15 days period provided for furnishing information required to be filed with the notice. In case the notice is registered, the minimum validity period shall be one year unless the noticee or right holder requests for a shorter period for customs assistance or action. The grant of registration of the notice is subject to following measures[vii]:

v  Customs Department can ex-officio suspends the clearance of the alleged counterfeit goods or on notice if the department has prima-facie evidence or reasonable grounds to believe the goods to be counterfeit. 

v  Customs Department is under duty to inform the right holder immediately about suspension of clearance of goods with the reasons for such suspension.

v  Goods suspended of clearance, is to be released, on 

• Notice  within 10 days (extendable further with 10 days), when the right holder fails to join proceedings
• Department’s own initiative within 5 days, when the right holder fails to give notice or fails to fulfill the obligation of executing bond.

v  Period of suspension of release of perishable goods is 3 days. 

v  Department is authorized to seize and confiscate the goods infringing intellectual property rights where it has reasons to believe that the goods are infringing intellectual property and thus liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act.

v  Customs is under duty, upon request by the importer, to provide the name and address of the right-holder and other relevant information relating to the goods suspended from clearance.

v  The right holder is under an obligation to provide customs authorities with the necessary information enabling them to identify infringing goods. The Custom authorities then seek information from the importer, of the person by whom the goods are consigned to India and the address of the person whom the goods are sent in India as well as ask him to produce documents relating to the goods. 

v  Right holder is authorized to examine the suspended goods and to provide samples for examination and analysis to determine whether the goods infringe intellectual property rights.

v  Customs department is to provide, upon request by the right holder, name and address of the importer and other relevant information relating to the goods suspended from clearance.

If the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs has a reason to believe that the imported goods are suspected to be goods infringing intellectual property rights, Custom Authorities can suspend clearance of suspected goods. Thereafter, the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs shall immediately inform the importer and the right holder of the suspension of clearance of the goods and shall also mention the reasons for such suspension. However the suspension goods can be released if the right holders fail to join the proceedings within a period of ten working days (extendable by another 10 days) from the date of suspension of clearance. In case the clearance of goods was suspended on Customs own initiative, such goods shall be released within five working days from the date of suspension of clearance, if the right holder fails to give notice or fails to execute the bond. In case of perishable goods, the period of suspension of release is three working days, extendable by another four days.

In case the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs determines that the goods detained or seized have infringed intellectual property rights, and have been confiscated under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, he shall destroy such goods under official supervision or dispose them outside the normal channels of commerce after obtaining ‘no objection’ or concurrence of the right holder. The right holder can raise objection on the mode of disposal within 20 working days (extendable by another 20 days) after having been informed so.

1. 5.    CONCLUSION

The counterfeiting products have affected not only on the loss of the right holder/owner in the market but also the economics of the nation. The Government should develop the regulation and enforcement to control such counterfeit commodities extensively spread out to the market. So for that the strict measures and stringent action to eradicate the counterfeit products is very significance. In addition not only the strict measure taken by the authority to eliminate such counterfeiting products is necessary but also the cooperation from the right holders or owners of such products is important to stop spreading and eliminate such counterfeit products both internal and external markets.

[ii] www.WorldTrademarkReview.com

[iii] Dr. Firdos T. Shroff, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) – A Gateway to Corporate Globalisation, SEBI and Corporate Law, Vol. 89, 2009.

[iv] Ramesh Babu and Abhai Pandey, Better For Brands to Work Together, India IP Focus, 2008.

[v] Article on Patent Infringement Law in India by K.R. Singh.

[vi] Article by Jayant Kumar, India: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights through Customs, 2 June 2009.

[vii] INDIA IPR CUSTOM & BORDER PROTECTION, Altacit Global, 2008.

Discrimination at Workplace

However, Indian women still face blatant discrimination at their workplaces. A major problem faced by the working women is sexual harassment at the work place. Further, women employees working in night shift are more vulnerable to such incidents. Nurses, for example, face this problem nearly every day. There is nothing that is done in hospitals to tackle and address the danger they face. Such blatant disregard of current Indian laws is one reason why sexual harassment at the workplace continues to increase.

Also, Indian women are often deprived of promotions and growth opportunities at work places but this doesn’t apply to all working women. A majority of working women continue to be denied their right to equal pay, under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and are underpaid in comparison to their male colleagues. This is usually the case in factories and labor-oriented industries.

Safety of Working Women While Traveling

Typically, the orthodox mindset in the Indian society makes it difficult for a working woman to balance her domestic environment with the professional life. In some families, it may not be acceptable to work after six o’clock. Those families that do accept these working hours may experience considerable anxiety every day about a woman’s safety while traveling. So many issues affect a working woman because she is closely protected or watched by her family and the society.

According to survey conducted by ASSOCHAM, on 1000 women professionals, around 80 per cent of the households expect their daughters-in-law to prioritize household requirements over the official work. Further, many of them are physically and psychologically abused, by their in-laws and husband but they do not complain or let others know about it, particularly if they have children.

Working Women Can Claim Maintenance

A woman’s legal right to claim maintenance from her husband is recognized under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 24, of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, entitles a woman to claim maintenance from her estranged husband. Also, the claim for maintenance is extendable to her minor children. Further, these laws provide that maintenance can be claimed even prior to divorce, during separation.

Initially, it was believed that a working woman in India is not entitled to claim maintenance, as she is capable of maintaining herself. However, the ambiguity was cleared by a significant decision in Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386. The Supreme Court held that a working woman can claim maintenance from her estranged husband, if her monthly income is not enough for her maintenance. Further, the Court clarified that the term ‘Unable to maintain herself’ does not require a woman to be absolute destitute, to entitle her for maintenance.

The legal right of a woman pertaining to equal pay at the work place remains unaddressed most of the time because few women are confident enough to complain. About right to maintenance, it is restricted, if she remarries or converts to another religion. Further, there have been instances where the Court has ordered women with substantial earnings, to pay maintenance to their husbands.

Indian Law: Juvenile Justice Act Governs Juveniles and Minors

As per Indian law, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, defines a juvenile as a person below the age of 18 years. The Act intends to provide care and protection to juveniles, who violate laws in India. The Act intends to settle the issues in the best interest of children and not with an intention to punish them under criminal law. Indian Laws on Child welfare According to Indian law, estimating a child’s actual age is of utmost importance for forensic practitioners, particularly when an accused claims to be juvenile before the court. Typically, the court shall take necessary evidence to determine the actual age so that there is no vagueness around it. The court shall also record the forensic findings so that if it is proved that the accused was a juvenile on the day of commission of the offence, the case shall be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board.

Indian law pertaining to the commission of crimes by juveniles stipulates that an offence commissioned by a child, below the age of 7 years, is not punishable. Further, the age of criminal responsibility is raised to 12 years, in case the child has not attained the ability to understand the consequences of his/her action.

If a minor is taken away by someone other than the parent/guardian without their knowledge or consent, the criminal law in India will hold it as an offence of kidnapping or abduction. The age limit is 16 years for boys and 18 years for girls.

Indian law recognizes a child as a competent witness, except for a child who is of 6 years or below. Indian law provides that evidence from a competent child witness; can form the basis of conviction. Section 118, of the Evidence Act provides that credibility of such a child witness depends on his ability to understand the answers, reliability, competency and circumstances of the case.

By Aastha Suman, 4^th year, WB NUJS, Kolkata 

“I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.”

                                                               -Abraham Lincoln, 16^th U.S President

Mercy is God’s grace, a gift to the mankind which gives all an equal chance to mend ways and to correct a deviant behaviour. This might be why every civilised state has had a provision to pardon offenders in their criminal justice system to be exercised as an act of grace and humanity in proper cases. Without such a power of clemency, to be exercised by some functionary of the government, a country would be most imperfect and deficient in its political morality.

[i] This rationale is further enunciated by Justice Holmes of US Supreme Court where he points out that pardon as of today is not an act of grace but is a constitutional scheme which when granted is determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be served by inflicting less than what the judgement fixed.

[ii]The significance and need for clemency has been a source of debate from decades. Montesquieu believed in significance of clemency in the monarchical system. Beccaria advocated total abolition of this institution and keeping this in view this provision was dropped for few years in France during the revolution of 1789 while the English scholars Feilding, Eden and Colquhoun concentrated their attacks on the abuses evident in the exercising of the pardoning power. Immanuel Kant and Filangeiri were against the very existence of such a provision.The power of pardon could be thought of as an archaic survivor of a bygone era where there existed an omnipotent ruler who was vested with powers to bestow his benevolence once in a while totally based on his whims and fancies.

[iii] Even today the reflections of the past can be seen in the provisions of our constitution. The constitution vests in the president and the governors of various states with the power to grant reprieves and pardons through its articles 72 and 161 respectively in addition to the commutation of sentences which may be also appropriated by the government under the provisions of CrPC and IPC.The presidential power acts as a safety valve in exceptional cases where the legal system fails to deliver a morally or politically unacceptable result and hence secures public welfare.

[iv] Also, pardon has become virtually the only way that a sentence, once final, can be reconsidered and, in appropriate cases, reduced. A pardon case provides a unique birds-eye view of how the criminal justice system is being administered, revealing where particular laws or enforcement policies are overly harsh, and where prosecutorial discretion is being unwisely exercised. A criminal justice system may be harsh and inflexible in which pardon power is a major boon for offenders who could have their convictions reviewed, prison sentences reduced, and rights of citizenship restored.Finally, apart from its role in encouraging law reform, pardon can tell good news about the justice system, by recognizing and rewarding criminal justice success stories where the convict’s atonement and changed ways are rewarded by pardon. After the court-imposed sentence has been served, pardon plays an important role in offender re-entry and reintegration by relieving legal disabilities and certifying good character .Also, in a way the relevance of pardon seems vindicated when we look at the sheer size of the prison population and need to reduce such a strain. Furthermore, clemency is a useful tool for prison administrators to reward good conduct and accomplishments by prisoners.The power of pardon has sometimes been regarded as an unprincipled and unwelcome intrusion in the law’s enlightened process as it leads to an overlap between the functions of judiciary and executive. Also, the significance of this power is on a decline because penal codes and other laws are acting as support to the convicts and need for a mercy petition is becoming unnecessary. For instance, clemency for rehabilitation is unimportant as statutory or judicial provisions for the same have come up. Similarly, the courts consider mental incapacity or act in self-defence before giving a verdict. Also, there is individualisation of cases and there are provisions for numerous appeals in which presidential clemency or Governors pardon have a minimum role to play. Furthermore, it could be argued that the courts use capital punishment sparsely and in the rarest of rare case and so scope of an executive interference is limited.The legitimacy of the president’s use of power depends importantly on how accessible it is and if the poor and the illiterate are able to utilise it as much as the rich and the powerful. Unfortunately, in India the illiterate are either unaware of the pardon power or are incapable of even drafting a mercy petition. Such convicts with no political connections are unable to influence or mobilise clemency in their favour.From the time of inclusion of executive clemency in the constitution it has been subjected to various controversies mainly due to the vague language of articles 72 and 161 as well as its archaic origin. The question of extent of power of pardon of punishment, the question of who should be granted pardon and what procedure to be followed in granting pardon by the executive have been a matter of debate for decades. Furthermore, the granting of pardons, reprieves, and manifestations of the executive clemency power in general have been variously described as unilateral, notoriously non-reciprocal, virtually unassailable, absolute and perhaps the most imperial of presidential powers.

[v] The large political influence on the pardoning power has further marred it with controversies. This nature of the pardoning power has lead to various petitions asking for judicial review of the same. To start with, is there a conflict between judicial power to pass a punishment authorised by law and the pardoning power? Does the pardoning power of the executive undermine the judicial decisions? Only when we have answers to these questions will we be able to evaluate the role of judiciary in regulating the pardoning power which is the main point of discussion in the following research.

 NEED OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

 Article 72 and 161 vest in the executive the humane and vast jurisdictiction to remit, repreive, respite, commute and pardon criminals on whom judicial sentences may have been imposed. The constitutional provisions implicitly allow for a two-tier process of seeking pardon, first from the state governor and then from the President at the center. It is clear from the constitution that like other powers of the president and the governor, the power to pardon is also to be exercised on the advice of council of ministers which means the president yet again acts out as a rubber stamp fulfilling a prerogative as under the constitution.

[vi]However, the power of pardon even if it is being wielded by the highest executive authority needs to be exercised in good faith, with intelligent and informed care and honesty for public welfare.[vii] Furthermore, the power to grant pardon is coupled with the duty to act fairly and reasonably. All public power, including constitution power, should never be exercised arbitrarily or malafide and ordinarily, guidelines for fair and equal execution are guarantors of the valid play of powers. The Supreme Court has expressed the need to make rules for the guidance in exercise of pardoning power while keeping a large residuary power to meet any special circumstances or sudden developments.

[viii] However, later the same court held that Article 72 has a wide ambit and is indicative enough that it coupled with previous case laws are sufficient and that no precise or clearly defined guidelines are required. Thus, the power of pardon remains unbridled with wide discretion provided to the executive. Moreover, from times immemorial the power of pardon has not so much been an act of grace as a tool of monetary and political aggrandizement. From the outset, the pardon was abused for personal gain. The systematic abuse of the pardoning power and the arbitrary and irrelevant reasons supporting issuance is nothing new to the system.

[ix] The Supreme Court observed in 1976 that a President gripped by communal frenzy and directing commutation on religious or community consideration alone, requires to be kept in check. As a remedy, it was thought essential to vest in the courts the power to review such decisions.The politicisation of clemency powers is inevitable. For instance, the case of Murugan, Santhan and Arivu (sentenced to death for their part in the conspiracy to kill former Prime Minister and leader of the Congress Party Rajiv Gandhi) as also Mohammed Afzal Guru (sentenced to death for conspiracy in the attack on the Indian Parliament). An instance of gross violation of the governor’s power to pardon was seen in Haryana which involved the murder of Jasbir Singh in which the prime accused Sat prakash and Sabir were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment by the Supreme Court. But three months later, the governor seemed to have miraculously pardoned both the convicts. Similar, pardons were granted to prime accused of Krishnan Kumar murder case and Jay Prakash attempt to murder case. In the first case BJP activists Jain and Bhumla were convicted by a Supreme Court bench of Justices G.T.Nanavati and V.N.Khare. However, almost immediately the governor of Haryana pardoned both. Luckily, in these cases the court’s power of judicial review saved the day where the Punjab and Haryana High court observed that there seems to be a lack of application of mind on the part of governor which is evident from the haste to grant pardon. Satpal and Ajay Chautala (Member of parliament) were the prime accused in the latter case.Furthermore, the absence of transparency in the clemency process is a serious concern, especially since the executive may be subject to pressures extraneous to the case. It is often the case that reasons for accepting or rejecting a mercy petition is not given. In the case of Padfeild and Others v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and others

[x]  it was stated that in case the executive gives no reasons for a decision the judiciary is at liberty to come to the conclusion that he had no good reason for reaching that concusion. The same was upheld in Muhammad Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan

[xi] and in Vamuzzo v. Union of India

[xii] which shows the importance of disclosing the basis for a decision on pardoning power.  The power of judicial review means that arbitrary executive actions can be corrected by an alert Supreme Court.

Another reason why the Supreme Court should intervene in the exercise of executive clemency is due to the delay in decision-making on mercy petitions by either the President or Governors. In both K.P. Mohammed v. State of Kerala

[xiii] and Sher Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

,[xiv]C.J Chandrachud led the Supreme Court benches in suggesting that the state accept a self-imposed rule and decide on mercy petitions within three months. In response to delays caused by the executive considering mercy petitions the Court commuted the sentences of the condemned prisoners in both Madhu Mehta v. Union of India and Ors

[xv]. and Daya Singh v. Union of India and ors

[xvi]as also in Shivaji Jaising Babar v. State of Maharashtra

 [xvii]It can be said that on an average, four to five years are taken for disposal of a mercy petition. Those who have been sentenced for the death penalty have to wait for an agonisingly long time- before the High Courts confirm such a sentence of the trial court, before the Supreme Court disposes off related Special Leave Petitions, and the President, Governor or the concerned governments grapple with the issues of pardon and commutation of the sentence. Such delays add immeasurably to the inhumanity of capital punishment. Although, in the year 1988 a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court ruled that an unduly long delay in execution of the sentence of death would entitle an approach to the Court, but that only delay after the conclusion of the judicial process would be relevant, and that the period could not be fixed This ruling effectively moved the focus of the question of delay away from the judicial process to that of the process of executive clemency. However, this issue remains unresolved till date with increasing number of delays in processing and passing of mercy petitions. For instance in the year 2006, there were 23 cases involving 44 condemned prisoners pending for disposal before the president of India. Out of which 2 cases are pending for less than a year, 8 cases for one to three years and 13 cases over three years. 22 petitions filed before the President of India have been processed in the Ministry of Home Affairs and submitted to the Hon`ble President of India for taking a decision on the petitions. One petition is being processed in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Some of the cases were pending before the president from 1998.

 SUPREME COURT ON PARDON POWER

One of the earliest case of significance where a clemency petition was brought under judicial review was G. Krishta Goud and J. Bhoomaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, the Court rejected the claim, observing that with respect to actions of the President, the Court “makes an almost extreme presumption in favour of bona fide exercise” and that the petitioners had shown no reason for the court to consider the rejection of their application “as motivated by malignity or degraded by abuse of power.” Even while rejecting the writ petition, the Court however sounded a note of caution and stated that the Court would intervene where there was “absolute, arbitrary, law-unto-themselves malafide execution of public power”.

These parameters for judicial review were reiterated again in Maru Ram v. Union of India and others where the Constitutional Bench further asserted that the Courts would intervene in cases where political vendetta or party favouritism was evident or where capricious and irrelevant criteria like religion, caste and race had affected the decision-making process. Such malafide and extraneous factors vitiate the exercise of pardon power and should be checked through judiciary.

Then, was the landmark case of Kehar Singh in which the challenge was to the president’s order declining clemency to one of the accused in the Indira Gandhi assassination case. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by special leave filed by Kehar Singh after the president declined to go into the merits of the case decided by the Supreme Court which was supposedly erroneous and also did not permit an oral presentation of cases before it. The court held that the area of the President’s power under Article 72 falls squarely within the judicial domain and can be examined by the court by way of judicial review. (The doubt existed as Article 361 of the constitution states that the president is not answerable to any court in the exercise of his powers.)  The Court can never question or ask for reasons why a mercy petition was rejected. However, if the reasons are provided by the president in his order and these are held to be irrelevant, the court could interfere. The court has also admitted judicial review on some specific grounds –

1. To determine the scope of Articles 72 and 161.
2. The court can interfere where the president’s exercise of power is vitiated by self-denial on erroneous appreciation of the full amplitude of power conferred by Art 72, e.g., where the president rejected a mercy petition on the erroneous ground that he could not go behind the final decision of the highest court of the land or where the decision is irrelevant, discriminatory or malafide.
3. In case of inordinate delay in processing the mercy petitions in case of death sentences, it could be substituted to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court admitted a writ petition in Kuljeet Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi and anr. challenging the arbitrariness of the clemency powers of the President and expressed need for the president to be presented with relavant facts and made aware of the existing circumstances. In Swarn Singh vs. State of UP,

[xviii] the Governor of Uttar Pradesh remitted the whole of the life sentence of an MLA of the State Assembly who had been convicted of the offence of murder within a period of less than two years of his conviction. The Supreme Court found that Governor was not posted with material facts such as the involvement of the accused in 5 other criminal cases, his unsatisfactory conduct in prison and the Governor’s previous rejection of his clemency petition in regard to the same case. Hence, the Supreme Court interdicted the order, acknowledging that though it had no power to touch the order passed by the Governor, if such power was applied arbitrarily, malafide and in absolute disregard of the finer cannons of constitutionalism, such an order cannot get the approval of law.

 Similarly, in the case of Satpal v. State of Haryana

[xix], it was held that the constitutional power given to the Governor under article 161 if found to be exercised without advise by Government or if the jurisdiction is transgressed or if it is established that the order was passed without application of mind or if the order is malafide or has been passed on some extraneous considerations like political loyalty, religion, caste etc, then the court has full right to interfere. ’ The Supreme Court quashed an order of the Governor pardoning a person convicted of murder on the ground that the Governor had not been advised properly with all the relevant materials. The Court spelt out specifically the considerations that need to be taken account of while exercising the power of pardon, namely, the period of sentence in fact undergone by the said convict as well as his conduct and behavior while he underwent the sentence. The Court held that not being aware of such material facts would tend to make an order of granting pardon arbitrary and irrational

Finally, in the recent case of Epuru Sudhakar and anr vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh the court laid clear grounds on which the pardoning power may be challenged. It was held that with clear separation of powers emphasised in the Constitution of India regarding pardons, the scope for judicial review of executive action is limited. Where constitutional powers of clemency are involved, the extent of judicial review is limited further to extreme cases. The Supreme Court referred to the large number of petitions challenging the grant of pardon or remission to prisoners, there are no cases in which the Supreme Court has quashed the decision of the President/Governor granting clemency.

The Court set aside a remission granted by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that irrelevant and extraneous materials had entered into the decision making. The Report of the District Probation Officer which was one of the materials on which the decision was based, highlighted the fact that the prisoner was a ‘Good Congress Worker’ and that he had been defeated due to political conspiracy. Similarly the Report of the Superintendent of Police reached a conclusion diametrically opposite to the one it had reached before elections were conducted. Thus in these judgments concerning the Governor’s exercise of pardon, the Court seems to have widened the grounds for judicial review by enumerating specific grounds on which the grant of pardon can be considered arbitrary. It was also held that the non-consideration of relevant factors such as length of the sentence already undergone, the prisoner’s behaviour and involvement in other crimes and consideration of extraneous or irrelevant grounds such as political affiliation, religion, caste may call for judicial review.

 EXECUTIVE vs. JUDICIARY

 Each organ of the government has its own well defined separate powers and hence the legislature or the judiciary cannot interfere with the presidential power. The Executive and the Judiciary are known to have separate paths, then where is their stand in the framework of pardoning power? It is also interesting to note that there may be a conflict between judicial power to pass a sentence or make an order authorised by law and the power of pardon as exercised by the executive. However, it is the wide belief that there is no conflict between the jurisdictions. If pardon is granted before or during a trial and accepted, there is no conflict as jurisdiction of a court to try an accused as it is nothing more than its obligation to decide a matter formally brought before it for determination. And if the pardon is accepted, there is nothing for courts to determine, for pardon can be pleaded in bar to indictment; or after verdict in arrest of judgement, or after judgement in bar of execution and court in giving effect to a plea which gives effect to the law of the land.

In the case of Kehar Singh v. Union of India, it was held that the manner of consideration of the petition lies within the discretion of the President, and it is for him to decide how best he can acquaint himself with all the information that is necessary for its proper and effective disposal. It was held that it is open to the President under the Constitution to scrutinise the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the Court and in doing so, the President does not amend, modify or supersede the judicial record. The President acts in a wholly different plane from that in which the court acted. He acts under a constitutional power, the nature of which is entirely different from the judicial power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it.

This ostensible incongruity is explained by Sutherland J. in United States v. Benz

 [xx]which distinguishes between judicial power and executive power over sentences. To render judgement is judicial while to carry out the judgement is executive. To cut short a sentence by an act of clemency is an exercise of executive power which abridges the enforcement of the judgement, but does not alter it qua a judgement.

It is rather interesting that there have been cases when the judiciary in itself has suggested a recourse to the power of pardon through there judgements which is a clear indicative of the coexistence of judiciary and executive while exercising the power of pardon. Thus, in Raj Nath v. State of Assam,

[xxi] while two judges took opposing views on whether to accept the claims that the accused was a juvenile and commute the sentence, the third (and therefore decisive) judge agreed to reject the petition, arguing that the accused had the remaining remedy of executive clemency. Similarly, the majority Bench in Devender Pal Singh v. State, N.C.T. of Delhi and anr. (with Krishna Mochi)

 [xxii]also relied on this safety-net when upholding the death sentence after the three judges were completely divided on questions of guilt as also of sentence.

There have been numerous instances, including every case of death penalty for which a mercy petition has been submitted while there have been a large number where the Supreme Court has been asked to interfere with the final mercy order given by the executive. It seems to be a never ending cycle with executive being appealed for mercy after court ruling and then the court door being knocked the after executive decision in the matter. However, as is evident from the various judgements of the Supreme Court the judicial review of pardoning power is inevitable.

CONCLUSIONS

Executive clemency is like the unbridled wind which blows unhindered with least interference of the judiciary and with discretionary powers to the president and the governor. The executive which is mired with its political bias has been granted to make decisions over-riding the decisions of the apex-courts of the country. Does this lead to a decision made in public interest, one which is more humane? The answer definitely is in the affirmative.

Let the provision for pardons be a ray of hope to those subject to the positivist limitations of interpretation of the law by the judges. Lon Fuller, the creator of inner morality of law clearly indicates that executive is not bound by the shackles of the black letter law and may go beyond it to include the essence of morality in it. The president and the governors of various states have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, commutations and remissions of sentences as long as it is based on certain reasons, the power of judicial review shall only be limited to the cases where the decisions was passed without application of mind or if the order is malafide or has been passed on some extraneous considerations like political loyalty, religion, caste etc. This safety valve placed in the form of judicial review is a boon in keeping a check on arbitrary decisions of the executive but it also creates a never ending tedious cycle prolonging the process of law. 

It is imperative that a person be deprived of his life and liberty by due process of law or by laws which are just, fair and reasonable. Consequently, the presidential power should also be used in accordance with the due process of law. To become so certain changes are recommended. Firstly, it is required that in the spirit of democracy, it is important that transparency be maintained in taking decisions on the mercy petitions. The president and the governors or those who indirectly exercise these powers through advice need to have objective criteria to process the petitions and the rationale behind each decision should be made clear through a speaking order. Secondly, keeping in mind the tenets of Article 14 of our constitution, the provision should be exercised with equanimity towards one and all without distinctions on the basis of gender, age, caste, community, language or geography.

In the democracy the ultimate sovereignty lies with the people and through them vests with their representatives.  Hence exercise of such power by the political executive by advising head of the state to grant pardon is legitimate.  In India the processes have enough checks and balances but never the less more caution is needed to avoid political considerations and exigencies colouring the exercise of the powers of pardon as evident from the past experiences and cases.

A time limit needs to be provided for the processing and final disposal of a mercy petition which would bring relief to the death chamber convicts. Agony of waiting to be executed traumatizes and kills the convict many more times than the actual execution. Also, the president needs an advisor who has some degree of independence from those who prosecuted the underlying criminal case; who can bring a different policy perspective and different values to bear on the matter, and whose independent political accountability can provide the president a measure of protection from public criticism.

Furthermore there should be equity before law and equal opportunity to all. For this the poor and the illiterate should be provided assistance in drafting, and pursuing their mercy petitions. Lastly and most importantly, it should be made a matter of policy that those prisoners who seem to have atoned and reformed should be pardoned and suitably rehabilitated. This shall encourage the criminal offenders to turn their lives around and start afresh. The president should use his wisdom and discretion well in order to take a just decision based on objective criteria to grant pardons.

Above all by the time the above recommendations are put into action the judicial review of pardoning power remains inevitable even if in a limited way.

[ii] Biddle v. Perovich [71 L. Ed. 1161 at 1163]

[iii] Love.C.Margaret, Reinventing the president’s pardoning power at  http://www.pardonlaw.com/materials/FSR.Pardon.2007.pdf last visited on 18 May 2008

[iv] Seervai H.M., Constitutional Law of India, Vol. II, fourth edn., Universal Book Traders, New Delhi, India, 1999.

[v] Kuljeet Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi and anr (1982) 1 SCC 11

[vi] C.J Pathak in Kehar Singh vs. Union of India (1989 SCC (1) 204) remarked that the power of pardon rests on advice of the executive which is subject to provisions of article 74(1) of the constitution.

[vii] G. Krishna Goud vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1976) 2 SCR 73

[viii] Maru Ram v. Union of India and others [(1981) 1 SCC 107]

[ix] Ex Parte Philip Grossman (69 L. Ed. 527) approved and adopted by apex court in Kuljeet Singh v. Lt Governor of Delhi.

[x] (1968) 1 All E.R 694

[xi] PLD 1988 Lah 725

[xii] (1988) Gauhati Law Journal 468

[xiii] 1984 Supp SCC 684)

[xiv] (AIR 1983 SC 465)

[xv] (AIR 1989 SC 2299)

[xvi] (AIR 1991 SC 1548)

[xvii] AIR 1991 SC 2147

[xviii] (1998) 4 SCC 75

[xix] 2000 (5) SCC 170

[xx] [ 75 L. Ed. 354]

[xxi] AIR 2001 SC 2231

[xxii] (AIR 2003 SC 886)