W.P.(C) 8182/2013 Page
illegal as well. Mr. Gupta submits that the Bar Council of India has not made B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) a compulsory residential based programme. 3.
Mr. Gupta adds that hardly any Judges, Attorney General(s), Law Officers, Senior Advocates or Advocates including the teachers teaching in the respondent-University have passed out from a mandatory residential law college. 4.
Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as having perused the replies given to queries under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the respondent-University as well as by the Bar Council of India, this Court is of the view that there is no legal bar in setting up a residential university. In fact, it has been left to the discretion of the respondent-University to decide as to whether it wants to have a residential programme for law course or not. 5.
Admittedly, the respondent-University is an autonomous body established by the Act No. 1 of 2008 of Government of NCT of Delhi and a copy of the impugned hostel rules have been approved by the Executive Council of the respondent-University in its meeting held on 11
August, 2008. Consequently, the respondent-University is entitled in law to offer a residential based B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) course. 6.
As far as the plea that there is no distinction between a mandatory residential law college and a non-residential law college is concerned, this Court is of the view that petitioner has the option to choose between a residential university and a university that offers only a LL.B. day course. But in the opinion of this Court, it is for the university to choose as to whether it wants to offer a residential course or a non-residential LL.B. course. Petitioner as a law student cannot dictate terms to the university.