Bombay High Court refuses to entertain PIL against background checks, CCTV at law colleges

The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that challenged the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) circular mandating criminal background check for law students before the issuance of their final marksheets..The PIL filed by advocate Ashok Yende had questioned the legality and validity of the circular issued by BCI, citing concerns over privacy, fairness and jurisdiction. The petition was withdrawn after a Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre observed that if the plea came to be dismissed, the petitioner, an advocate, would effectively end up 'foreclosing the rights' of those genuinely aggrieved. Additionally, the Court prima facie opined that the circular was not unconstitutional. "Having a criminal case does not have the effect of driving you away from education right. You can still pursue the course. It's okay. There is nothing wrong with it," the Court opined. As per the circular issued by the BCI on September 24, 2024, law colleges have to perform criminal background checks on students, including ongoing FIRs, criminal cases, convictions or acquittals, before awarding final marksheets and degrees. Additionally, students are required to declare that they are not pursuing other academic programs or working in any job without obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC). The circular further mandates installation of biometric attendance systems and CCTV cameras in classrooms.In his petition, advocate Yende, who is also a legal educationist with over 40 years of experience, argued that the BCI has overstepped its jurisdiction. "The BCI has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned circular, and that said the circular is unwarranted, completely arbitrary, and ultra vires the jurisdiction and powers of BCI," the petition said. Yende contended that under the Advocates Act of 1961, the BCI’s role is limited to regulation of the legal profession and not imposition of requirements that encroach upon the jurisdiction of universities in regulating admissions and academic practices. He also highlighted that the circular, particularly the requirement for disclosing criminal backgrounds, is discriminatory, as it applies only to law students and not to those pursuing other disciplines. According to Yende, the move is a violation of right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.The PIL further asserted that the circular infringes on the fundamental right to privacy of law students, violating Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), as the disclosure of criminal antecedents, including acquittals, is an unwarranted invasion of privacy. .The PIL further claimed that this measure by BCI will cause harassment, particularly to students who have been falsely implicated in criminal cases. In addition, Yende argued that the requirement for students to maintain a “clean criminal record” contradicts the principles of reformative justice, a central tenet of India’s criminal justice system. In light of these concerns, advocate Yende requested Court to issue a writ directing the BCI and the University of Mumbai to withdraw the circulars..Recently, the Supreme Court had sought the response of the BCI on petitions challenging the same circulars.That matter is pending before the apex court.