Allahabad High Court
ANKITA TRIPATHIversusCHHATRAPATI SAHUJI MAHARAJ UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The court declined to grant the writ relief and ordered the petitioner to file a supplementary reply, directing the Bar Council of India to clarify the procedural requirements before any sanction can be imposed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ankita Tripathi, challenged a show‑cause notice issued by the principal of Bramhanand College for allegedly failing to disclose employment as required by a circular dated 24‑09‑2024. The petitioner argued that the circular should not apply to her because she had taken admission before its issuance, while the respondent contended that the undertaking was required of all students and that the petitioner had concealed employment since 17‑11‑2023. The court examined the circular, noting it was issued under a judicial observation to monitor law students' backgrounds, but found no prescribed procedure for handling false declarations or ensuring natural justice. The court held that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to submit a detailed reply within three weeks and that clarification should be sought from the Bar Council of India regarding the circular and applicable procedural safeguards. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting the reliefs of certiorari or mandamus, pending further clarification.
Issues considered
- Whether the circular dated 24‑09‑2024 mandating a no‑employment undertaking applies to a student who took admission before its issuance.
- Whether the respondent's show‑cause notice and potential academic sanctions violate principles of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue her LL.B studies and sit for examinations despite alleged non‑disclosure of employment.
Subjects
- admission
- circular
- undertaking
- employment disclosure
- natural justice
- Bar Council of India
- LL.B
- academic sanctions
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 31460 of 2025
Ankita Tripathi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University And
Another .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bijai Prakash Tiwari, Richa Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Padmaker Pandey, Rohit Pandey
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Padmaker Pandey,
learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
3. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, Principal, Bramhanand
College (Annexure No.2 to this writ petition).
ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no. 2, Principal, Bramhanand College to permit/appear the petitioner in
studying the Law Classes regularly and also to direct to the respondent No.2 to
permit/appear the petitioner in the forthcoming examination of the L.LB. Session as
well as in L.LB. Viva Examination."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has taken
admission prior to the coming into force of the Circular dated 24.09.2024,
which mandated that all the students must declare that “they were” not
engaged in any job, service or vocation, during the course of their LL.B
degree unless they have obtained a valid no-objection certificate.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted
that the declaration was given by the petitioner on 03.01.2025 in
pursuance of the Circular dated 24.09.2024 and he did not disclose that he
WRIC No. 31460 of 2025
2
was gainfully employed since 17.11.2023. The offer letter of the
petitioner is also annexed along with counter affidavit as CA-4.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that he was
gainfully employed but asserts that the Circular dated 24.09.2024 is not
applicable on him.
7. The perusal of the aforesaid Circular, demonstrates that the same was
issued in pursuance of a judicial observation regarding the need to
monitor the antecedents and background of law students; which makes it
evident that all the existing law students were also required to file their
undertaking. The form appended to the Circular dated 24.09.2024 also
describes the said document as “Undertaking by Student”; and as such, I
do not find the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
acceptable that since he has taken admission prior to 24.09.2024,
therefore he was not required to give such undertaking. However, from
the perusal of the Circular dated 24.09.2024 issued by the Bar Council of
India, I find that no consequence has been prescribed, in case a student
furnishes a detail of his employment subsequently and what recourse can
be undertaken.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that in the
Circular dated 24.09.2024, it has specifically been mentioned that
students who fails to disclose the required antecedents, will face academic
and legal consequences, including withholding of their marksheets and
degrees, however, prior to doing so, what mechanism has to be followed
or whether the principles of natural justice has to be adhered with, has not
been provided for in the Circular. However, I find that the consequences
for the institution; who fails to enforce these mandate, has only been
provided.
9. In view of the aforesaid, at this juncture, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that he has subsequently furnished the
details of his employment and the same is evident from the inquiry report
dated 04.08.2025 and as such, taking a lenient view in the matter he may
be permitted to continue his studies.
10. I find hat the respondents have already given the show cause notice
WRIC No. 31460 of 2025
3
and also that certain clarification may also be required from the Bar
Council of India, therefore in the fitness of things, this court permits the
petitioner to furnish his supplementary reply within a period of three
weeks from today in response to the impugned show cause notice; and in
case the petitioner furnishes a detailed reply, it is expected from the
respondent no.2 to take a compassionate view in the matter and also
before proceeding further, a clarification shall also sought from the Bar
Council of India regarding the Circular dated 24.09.2024, in case it is
found that subsequently, the appropriate undertaking has been given and
there is adherence to Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education.
11. In case such a clarification is sought, it is expected from the Bar
Council of India to issue a detailed guidelines prescribing the procedure
which should adhere to the principles of natural justice, before any
consequences follows, in case there is a false declaration or the students
have failed to give an undertaking as desired by the Circular dated
24.09.2024. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within a period of
eight weeks from today.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
April 2, 2026
Sumit K.
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…