The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the extent to which the Bar Council of India (BCI) can interfere in matters of legal education [Girish Mittal v. Bar Council of India and ors]..The Court orally observed that the BCI cannot control the running of law colleges, even though it has a role in regulating law college curriculum, the period of study and the general promotion of legal education.“You can lay down the curriculum, whether it should be four years, five years. You can promote legal education and for that, you can take promotional measures. But you can't control it. What do you know about legal education? There are experts,” remarked Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant. The Bench of CJI Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a plea related to the use of funds transferred to the BCI Trust PEARL-First, which in 2020 replaced the erstwhile BCI trust that had been in place since 1974. .In particular, the petitioner, Girish Mittal, has raised questions about the creation and functioning of two law colleges in Goa and Andhra Pradesh. These colleges were created after the BCI Trust PEARL-First entered into certain arrangements with the respective State governments. In this context, questions have been raised about the manner in which BCI funds are being routed and put to use. Representing the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan today reiterated concerns about the transfer of funds to the new trust. He recounted that Manan Kumar Mishra, who has headed the BCI since 2012 and who has been integral to the creation of the PEARL-First trust, also declared himself a lifetime trustee of the new trust. The petitioner contended that the Acts governing the two colleges effectively give the BCI powers to run the institutions it regulates, contrary to established principles against conflicts of interest between a regulator and the institutions it oversees.”We are saying that the provisions of those Acts essentially make the Bar Council totally in charge of running those colleges. 27 out of the 35 members of the Executive Council (of the college are nominated by BCI)… In fact, the Acts also say that the Trust will run these law colleges... The principle that a regulator cannot run an institution which it is regulating has been laid down by this Court in many cases, including the BCCI case,” Bhushan argued. .CJI Kant, in turn, observed that the Court would have to examine the extent of the BCI’s powers in such matters. “First, we would like to determine whether the Bar Council has any power to regulate and control the law universities."Representing a respondent, Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni maintained that the BCI has powers in this domain. “We will show that from the provisions of the Act. The Medical Council of India also regulates medical education and permits enrolment of doctors…There is a Constitution Bench judgment on this matter. UGC has specifically said that so far as medical education is concerned, there is a carve-out,” he said. .The Bench went on to express that the main issue is how far the BCI can regulate legal education. This would include the interpretation of Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which says that the BCI also has a role to “promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education.”“We would like to examine this and if needed refer it also to larger bench. The very basic issue is how far the Bar Council of India is an expert body to regulate legal education…(Section 7(1)(h)) has been interpreted. We can lay down general guidelines,” the CJI said. Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta also joined in raising concerns about the use of funds transferred to the BCI PEARL-First trust. “Donations in crores are coming to the BCI Trust for giving approvals to these colleges, which are now mushrooming. We would be submitting documents on record,” she said. .The Court proceeded to issue notice on the petition by Girish Mittal. “Issue notice. Notice accepted by BCI standing counsel. Serve a copy upon the office of SG Mehta as well,” the Court ordered. .[Live Coverage]
