Bar & Bench News Network; Sep 29, 2010;
Ever since it was discovered that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has awarded the contract to conduct the first ever All India Bar Exam (AIBE) to private company Rainmaker, there have been a slew of questions regarding the BCI’s decision. Now a Right to Information (RTI) inquiry which had been filed by a Nalsar graduate regarding the BCI’s reasons to appoint Rainmaker as the body to conduct the AIBE has thrown up some interesting answers.
Anup Surendranath, a Nalsar graduate and current D.Phil scholar at the Oxford University, decided to file a RTI inquiry seeking clarification on the decision and the process to award Rainmaker the contract to conduct the AIBE.
The RTI application included questions like whether any public notification was issued inviting proposals to partner the BCI in conducting the AIBE, what was the process adopted to call for proposals from companies and institutions to partner the BCI, a copy of the contract, what payments have been made to Rainmaker, etc.
The answers supplied by the BCI throw up an interesting analysis on the arbitrary process undertaken by the BCI to appoint Rainmaker as the body to conduct the first ever AIBE.
The BCI has replied saying that no public notification was ever issued as the directive to conduct the AIBE had come directly from the Supreme Court. The BCI further goes on to say that after the orders were passed in the Bonnie Foi Law College case, representatives from Rainmaker approached the BCI and offered to conduct the AIBE and also drew up elaborate plans to implement reforms in the legal education sector. The BCI also goes on to say that Rainmaker did so with very little expense to the BCI and that the regulatory body did not find any other company or institution that were involved in the legal knowledge services that's offered by Rainmaker.
An interesting answer given by the BCI was that no other institutions, companies or organization other than Rainmaker ever came forward to submit proposals to partner with the BCI in the conducting of the AIBE.One wonders how any other institution could have come forward if a public notice was never issued by the BCI.
The BCI refused to supply a copy of the contract between them and Rainmaker citing fiduciary relationship, thus making it difficult to examine the details of the contract in detail.
The BCI has also replied saying that they will benefit monetarily from the AIBE and refused to divulge how they will utilize the proceeds, only stating that the BCI will use the proceeds as they deem fit.
Speaking to Bar & Bench, Anup illustrated the reasons that prompted him to file a RTI application, saying, “In the Bonnie Foi Law College case, the Solicitor General had stated that the exam will be conducted by a specially constituted independent body. Why then was there a sudden reversal in strategy and a contract was awarded to Rainmaker? I thought clarity on this issue will be beneficial.”
Though the BCI has responded to the RTI inquiry, Anup isn’t satisfied with their response, saying, “A copy of the contract was not provided so it is difficult to establish whether Rainmaker is a principal agent of the BCI or not. Also I had requested for all communication between the BCI and Rainmaker, instead I was provided with only 2 emails.”
Asked on his future course of action, Anup said he hasn’t decided on his next step and is still examining all his options.
With the BCI keen on projecting a transparent image, the RTI inquiry throws up some interesting questions. Could there have been a body better equipped to organize the AIBE? With a large number of students facing an uncertain future due to the timing of the AIBE, a deeper examination is needed by the authorities on the actions of the BCI.
.JPG)
.JPG)
