Law Students Approach Supreme Court Against BCI Directions For Criminal Background Checks, Biometric Attendance, CCTV Surveillance

The Supreme Court today issued notice on two public interest litigations filed against two circulars issued by Bar Council of India in September, 2024, which mandated that criminal background check, declaration of simultaneous degree or employment and compliance with attendance norms before enrolling of candidates for legal education or practice.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Bar Council of India on the petition filed by Prakruthi Jain and Keyur Akkiraju, final year law students of the NALSAR University, who appeared as parties-in-person.To recap, on September 24, 2024, BCI issued a circular to all Universities/Law Colleges/Centers of Legal Education mandatorily requiring them to implement a Criminal Background Check System, to install a Biometric Attendance System and to install CCTV cameras in classrooms and other keys areas of the institutions.On September 25, 2024, BCI wrote to all State Bar Councils mandating that criminal background verification must be done before enrolling advocates and declarations must be obtained from them regarding degree and job.Aggrieved by these circulars, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court contending that the circulars issued by BCI "in the garb of upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession" were without jurisdiction.The petitioners argue that the directions in the circulars were inconsistent with the values of a free and democratic society as they infringe upon the freedom of speech and expression in 'university spaces', the personal liberty of the students and educators alike, as well as the right to privacy.In terms of the circulars, Centres of Legal Educations (CLE) are required to conduct a "thorough criminal background check" on each student before issuing final marksheets and degrees. Law students, on their part, are required to declare any ongoing FIR, criminal case, conviction, or acquittal. Any involvement in criminal cases must be reported to BCI, and CLEs must await the BCI's decision before issuing final marksheets or degrees. The petitioner contends that this violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it does not entail a reasonable classification of the categories of declarations to be made."The failure to classify and differentiate between 'ongoing FIR, criminal case, conviction, or acquittal' does not meet the reasonable classification test. Further, there is no rational nexus between the aim sought to be achieved, i.e., 'to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession' and the mandatory implementation of the Criminal Background Check System, pertinently, the requirement of disclosing even acquittals."Insofar as the circulars empower BCI to initiate strict disciplinary action against law students as also CLEs, including the withholding of final marksheet and degree on account of failure to disclose information, the petitioner highlights that no policy has been formulated so as to guide the BCIs decision-making process, making the impugned provision "extremely vague, overbroad, arbitrary, and hence, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution".So far as the direction for installation of CCTV cameras, the petitioner asserts that such surveillance would have a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of speech (guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution) in CLEs which are considered political spaces. Further, it would lead to students and lecturers engaging in self-censorship in face of uncertain consequences.As regards the biometric system of attendance, the petitioner claims that biometric data forms 'personal data' of a person, unauthorized use/access to which would be violative of right to privacy. Further, it is stated that the mandatory collection of biometric data is non-consensual and does not give choice of 'opting out'. "Respondent has not put in place any adequate safeguards against data leak, possible secondary use, misuse by private parties etc.", says the petition.The second circular issued by the BCI (with directions to the State Bar Councils) is challenged on the ground of violation of Article 19(1)(g) contending that the BCI has "imposed unreasonable restrictions in an arbitrary manner upon the exercise of freedom of profession protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India"Case Title: PRAKRUTHI JAIN v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, Diary No.47760/2024 (and connected case)Click Here To Read/Download Order

Law Students Approach Supreme Court Against BCI Directions For Criminal Background Checks, Biometric Attendance, CCTV Surveillance

Debby Jain

Tags