Beyond the BCI moratorium: Why Indian legal education needs a digital transparency framework

The Bar Council of India (BCI) recently took a landmark step by announcing a three-year moratorium on the establishment of new law colleges.

This decisive move, aimed at curbing the unchecked mushrooming of sub-standard institutions, signals a much-needed official shift in focus from quantity to quality in legal education. While this top-down regulatory action is a crucial and welcome first step, it must be complemented by a bottom-up, technology-driven framework that empowers its most important stakeholder: the student.

True reform requires a two-pronged approach. As the BCI works to strengthen standards from within, we must simultaneously equip students and their families with the tools to make informed decisions. The ultimate goal is not just to regulate institutions, but to create a transparent ecosystem where quality is recognised and mediocrity has nowhere to hide.

For a prospective law student today, choosing a college is a perilous, high-stakes gamble. Critical information regarding a college's approval status is often inaccessible, forcing students to operate on faith. This issue is not confined to obscure private colleges; it affects even the most reputed public institutions, creating systemic vulnerability.

The situation at Panjab University, a premier institution, is a stark case in point. The Department of Laws saw its BCI affiliation expire in 2022, and it was only renewed in 2025 after significant persuasion from the students themselves. Similarly, the University Institute of Legal Studies (UILS), another flagship department of the University, operated with a lapsed affiliation from 2020 until its renewal in 2025.

For years, new and existing students at these institutions were technically studying in departments with expired BCI approvals. The lack of proactive transparency left the entire student body in a precarious position, dependent on their own diligence and activism to ensure the basic legitimacy of their institution. This is a profound injustice. A student's future should not depend on their ability to uncover administrative lapses; the system itself should guarantee transparency. The devastating outcome of such lapses, if left unrectified, is a degree that could render them ineligible for enrolment as advocates, shattering their career aspirations.

To address this critical gap, a new Digital Transparency Framework should be implemented, based on a comprehensive proposal submitted to the Bar Council of India and the Union Law Minister on August 2, 2025. This solution is designed to bring radical, user-friendly transparency to the forefront.

The core of the proposal is a mandatory requirement for every Centre of Legal Education (CLE) to display a standardised emblem, plaque or big posters at all primary entrances, featuring a unique QR code. A student considering admission to UILS in 2023, for example, could have scanned the code and seen the reality of the situation instantly.

Upon scanning, this QR code would link to a dedicated, secure webpage hosted under the official BCI domain. This centralised webpage would serve as a single source of truth, containing:

Live status indicator: A large, color-coded button. A GREEN button would indicate BCI Approval Valid, while a RED button would instantly signal BCI Approval Expired/Withdrawn.

Essential details: The institution's official name, address, BCI approval validity period, NAAC grading and a list of all approved law courses offered.

Accountability links: Direct, working links to the institution's Grievance Redressal Mechanism, Anti-Ragging Cell and student feedback portals etc.

Inclusivity and accessibility: To ensure equitable access, the information must be available in all official languages of India and adhere to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).

This proposal is not merely a matter of policy, but a constitutional imperative. The framework directly supports the BCI's mandate and upholds these rights:

Ensuring eligibility for enrolment: It directly protects students from investing years and resources into a degree that might not be BCI-approved.

Upholding the right to be informed: The proposal enforces the right to be informed, which the Supreme Court has held as part of Article 19(1)(a). This right is fundamental and the framework provides students with the critical information needed to make an informed choice.

Strengthening the right to education: While Article 21A of the Constitution specifically mandates free and compulsory education for children, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Right to Education in its broader sense is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life under Article 21. This right is not merely about access to a classroom; it is about access to meaningful and legitimate education that leads to a dignified life. An education from an institution with a lapsed BCI approval is a hollow promise, providing a degree that is legally void for professional practice and nullifying a student's effort. The Digital Transparency Framework strengthens this fundamental right by transforming it from an abstract guarantee into a verifiable reality. By safeguarding students, the framework ensures their right to education translates into a tangible opportunity to pursue a legal profession, thereby upholding their right to a chosen livelihood.

The BCI's moratorium and the proposed digital framework are not independent ideas; they are two sides of the same coin. The BCI’s plan to conduct intensified inspections will generate crucial data on institutional quality. The framework provides the perfect public-facing interface to broadcast the results of these audits.

Imagine a college failing an inspection. The BCI could withdraw approval and the digital portal would instantly reflect this with a RED status, providing a real-time warning to the public. This synergy between regulatory action and public transparency would create a powerful, self-reinforcing cycle of accountability.

The BCI has commendably initiated the difficult process of systemic reform. The moratorium provides a vital opportunity to rebuild. However, as the Panjab University example shows, regulatory oversight alone is insufficient without a parallel commitment to public transparency.

The path forward requires a two-pronged approach: continued, strong top-down regulatory action from the BCI, combined with a radical commitment to bottom-up transparency that empowers students. By adopting this Digital Transparency Framework, the Bar Council of India can build on its recent momentum, foster a culture of public accountability and create a legacy of trust and excellence for the next generation of India’s legal professionals.

Rajavikrant Sharma is a graduate of Department of Laws, Panjab University.