Plea before Supreme Court against BCI halt on establishment of new law colleges

The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to a plea challenging the imposition of a three-year moratorium on the establishment of new law colleges across the country [Jatin Sharma v. Bar Council of India & Ors.].

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by advocate Jatin Sharma assailing 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 the unchecked mushrooming of substandard institutions and to safeguard the integrity of legal education.

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

“All such proposals, if considered at all, will be subjected to strict scrutiny and ongoing compliance reviews. Pending applications that have not received final approval as on the commencement date will not be affected and shall be processed in accordance with law,” it said.

The petition before the apex court claimed that the blanket moratorium was arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution as it deprives deserving aspirants of access to legal education and penalises compliant institutions.

The petitioner said that instead of a uniform freeze, there should be targeted, transparent and region-specific regulatory measures to address sub-standard institutions while allowing genuine proposals to come forward.

The real causes of declining educational standards—such as unchecked use of unfair means in examinations, lax enforcement of attendance rules, and commercialization of LL.M. and Ph.D. degrees—could be addressed through stricter inspections and accountability of universities, rather than stifling all new institutions, it was contended.

"Rather than exercising its statutory powers under Sections 7(1)(h) and 49 of the Advocates Act to inspect, supervise, and take punitive measures against delinquent institutions and individuals, the respondent BCI has chosen to impose a sweeping embargo on all new law colleges, a measure which lacks any rational nexus with the professed objective... and undermines competition and innovation in the education sector," the petitioner submitted.

The petitioner suggested that the BCI should reconstitute its Legal Education Committee and Curriculum Development Committee with the involvement of sitting or retired judges, senior advocates, and academicians.

The petitioner also recommended periodic inspections, stricter compliance audits and proportionate sanctions such as intake caps and derecognition of errant institutions.

In particular, it was argued that the establishment of new law colleges should be encouraged in aspirational, tribal, and underserved districts in order to reduce regional disparities in access to legal education.

The petition has been filed through advocate Vairawan AS.

[Read Order]