Another petition before Supreme Court against BCI's 3-year-ban on opening new law colleges

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Bar Council of India's (BCI) response on a fresh petition challenging its August 2025 decision to impose a moratorium on the opening of any new law college in India for three years [Vocation Education Foundation v. Bar Council of India].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the matter and listed it for further hearing on January 30.

A similar plea, filed by advocate Jatin Sharma, is already pending before the Court. These petitions challenge the Rules of Legal Education, Moratorium (Three-Year Moratorium) with respect to Centres of Legal Education, 2025.

The BCI brought in the rules claiming that it was a measure to curb unchecked mushrooming of substandard institutions and to safeguard the integrity of legal education.

According to a press release issued by BCI on August 13, 2025, no existing Centre of Legal Education will be permitted to introduce new sections, courses or batches without prior approval of the Council during the three-year period.

The latest plea challenging these rules has been filed by a society named Vocation Education Foundation (VEF).

The VEF has claimed it had tried to submit its application seeking approval to start law courses in February last year, around 6 months before the BCI's moratorium was imposed.

The VEF had proposed to start 3-year LLB and 5-year BA LLB law programmes at the IEC Law College from the academic year 2025-26 onwards.

According to the petition filed through advocate Vivek Jain, the VEF sent a request to the BCI on February 12, 2025, for the issuance of a login ID and password so that it may submit an online application for the approval of these courses.

However, the BCI did not act on this request and in August that year, it imposed its 3-year moratorium on opening any new law college. The said moratorium did have a clause clarifying that it would not affect law courses where applications for approvals had already been sent, but were yet to be decided by the BCI.

VEF has highlighted that it could not finish sending its application for approval as its request for a login ID and password was not acted on by the BCI. Thereafter, the VEF sent another similar request on December 22, 2025, so that it may start offering law courses for the academic year 2026-27, starting from July/ August 2026.

This latest request has not been acted on by the BCI either, prompting VEF to approach the top court for relief.

In its plea, the VEF has argued that it has all the necessary financial, infrastructural and administrative support to start a new law college, including affiliation with the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut.

The VEF has further challenged the BCI's moratorium as arbitrary for not making any distinction between law colleges that may not have such infrastructure and those that have it.

The VEF has contended that the moratorium is unreasonable, disproportionate and also violates the right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution, apart from violating the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to carry on one's occupation or trade (Article 19).

The plea also questions whether the BCI has the authority to order a halt to opening new law colleges.

"The Advocates Act, 1961 does not confer upon the (BCI) any power to impose a ban or moratorium on the establishment of new Centres of Legal Education. In the absence of a specific statutory provision authorising such a prohibition, the exercise of such power is wholly impermissible and ultravires," the plea says.

The VEF adds that the only reason why it could not avail an exemption to the BCI's moratorium, available to institutes with pending applications, was the inaction of the BCI itself.

“Had the (BCI) acted upon the Petitioner's request dated 12.02.2025 and issued the login ID and password or enabled access to the BCI portal, the Petitioner would have duly submitted its online application in accordance with the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and the same would have acquired the legal status of a ‘pending application’ prior to the imposition of the moratorium on 13.08.2025. The only reason the Petitioner's application couldn't be submitted was due the Respondent's own failure to operationalise the portal or facilitate submission. Hence the Petitioner's case should also be considered for exemption under Rule 3," the plea contends.