BCI's Power To Inspect Law Colleges: Supreme Court Seeks 'Independent, Transparent' Mechanism For Periodical Inspection

The Supreme Court recently called on the Bar Council of India to suggest an independent mechanism for annual/ periodical inspection of law colleges/ universities. While issuing notice on a petition challenging Bombay HC judgment which upheld a notice of inspection issued by BCI to petitioner-Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said,“Meanwhile, the Bar Council of India shall suggest an independent, impartial and transparent mechanism for annual/periodical inspection of the Law Colleges/Law Universities.” The impugned judgment held that the Rules of Legal Education 2008 framed by BCI, under which it can inspect law colleges, are not ultra vires.The underlying petition before the High Court was filed by the petitioner in 2019, challenging the notice of inspection issued by BCI and a show-cause notice asking why the university's degree for the law course should not be suspended (over its refusal to get inspected).The petitioner objected to the notice arguing that BCI did not have power to inspect the college. It argued that the Legal Education Rules framed by BCI itself were not in consonance with the Advocates Act. The BCI broadened the scope of its authority in the Rules and thus, it could not have made rules on inspection when they were absent in the Advocates Act, the petitioner contended.The petitioner further submitted that the law degree was conferred by the University it was affiliated with, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act 2016 (2016 Act). In view of this, it submitted, BCI had no power to inspect the law school.Vide the impugned judgment, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik observed that the Rules under which the BCI is empowered to inspect law colleges do not violate Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The High Court referred to Section 7(1) of the Advocates Act (functions of the BCI) and noted that it is BCI's duty to maintain the standard of legal education. It further referred to Section 49(1) of the Act, which empowers BCI to make rules for discharging its functions under the Act, including the standards of legal education and the inspection of Universities for that purpose.The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96], where it was observed that BCI's prominent role is to promote legal education and lay down standards of such education. It noted that Section 7(1)(m) of the Advocates Act is in the nature of a residuary clause having the widest amplitude to discharge of such functions.Stating that the petitioner-law school could not claim immunity from inspection by the BCI, the Court further held that rule-making power of BCI should not be given a restrictive meaning as it would defeat the objective of the Advocates Act.Insofar as the petitioner's reliance on the 2016 Act, the Court noted that the Advocates Act and Legal Education Rules are special laws, while the 2016 Act is a general law dealing with universities in Maharashtra. It observed that the 2016 Act does not expressly repeal the provisions of the Advocates Act and there is no inconsistency with it. Even assuming there is an inconsistency, the Advocates Act would prevail as it was enacted by the Parliament, the Court stated.Appearance: Sr Adv Shekhar G Devasa, Advs Manish Tiwari, Thashmitha Muthanna and Ranjit Kotian; AoR M/S. Devasa & Co. (for petitioner)Case Title: NATHIBAI DAMODAR THACKERSEY WOMENS UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 17029/2025Click here to read order

BCI's Power To Inspect Law Colleges: Supreme Court Seeks 'Independent, Transparent' Mechanism For Periodical Inspection

Debby Jain

Tags