Supreme Court urges BCI to establish national legal academy for lawyers

The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested that the Bar Council of India (BCI) establish a National Legal Academy for advocates, on the lines of the National Judicial Academy which trains judges.

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that  lawyers should be trained and equipped to work as a team with courts and judges for the effective and efficient delivery of justice.

To achieve this, serious consideration should be given to institutionalising future continuous learning for lawyers, the Court added. A National Legal Academy for lawyers would serve this purpose, it noted.

"It is necessary to establish a full-time academy, which may be called the National Legal Academy (NLA) for lawyers, like the National Judicial Academy that has been established for training and capacity building for Judges. Such an institution would enable post-enrolment structural learning, enhance professional competence, ethical awareness, technological adaptability, and long-term planning and corroboration. Bar Council of India must invest its time and energy in institutionalising this body," the Court said.

The Court pointed out that there were several experienced lawyers who could aid in this endeavour.

"All that is required is to bring them together and enable the idea to take shape," it added.

The Court, therefore, directed the BCI to constitute a team of senior and junior lawyers as well as experts in the field who are familiar with establishing academic institutions to discuss the idea of establishing National Legal Academy.

This issue will be discussed further on August 31, when the matter is listed next to consider the proposed establishment of the academy.

"We hope and trust the BCI will rise to the occasion and reflect on all these issues and inform the Court of its decision ... List the appeal on 31.08.2026 for considering the issues relating to institutionalising Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and the proposal for establishing National Legal Academy (NLA). BCI may file an affidavit indicating the developments a week before the listing of the case," the Court said.

The Court passed the direction while dealing with a petition challenging Indian Banks' Association's decision to put an advocate on its caution list after his removal from a panel by Canara Bank in connection with a wrong legal opinion.

The Court ruled that the counsel's inclusion in caution list solely on the basis of negligence was unsustainable in law. It added that while banks have a choice to remove counsel from their panel, there cannot be a public declaration about such action.

It also ruled that matters relating to professional conduct/misconduct falls exclusively within regulatory bodies, namely the BCI.

Court orders audit of disciplinary process governing lawyers accused of misconduct

Notably, the Court also called for an audit of the BCI's powers when it comes to disciplinary action against lawyers facing allegations of misconduct.

The Court has directed the BCI to take a performance audit of how effective its disciplinary powers are, and take corrective steps if the process is found lacking in such respects.

"Having regard to the importance of maintaining public confidence in the institution of lawyers, it is desirable that the Bar Council of India undertakes a comprehensive performance audit of the disciplinary mechanisms administered by it and the State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. We direct the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee and seek an objective assessment of its duties of self-regulation of professional conduct and discipline, consider the report and file an affidavit of the action proposed/taken," the Court ordered.

The Court added that the committee undertaking the audit exercise must examine aspects such as the number of complaints before State Bar Councils, the number of complaints disposed of annually, average disposal times, age-wise pendency of cases, regional variations in disposal patterns, procedural practices adopted, the adequacy of staffing and administrative support, the nature of outcomes and sanctions imposed, accessibility and transparency of disciplinary proceedings and compliance with statutory timelines.

The purpose of this exercise is not to attribute blame but to identify systemic strengths and weaknesses, the Court further said. The objective should be evidence-based reform aimed at improving the effectiveness of the disciplinary framework, while preserving fairness and professional independence, the Court clarified.

"There is also a compelling public interest in ensuring that the legal profession’s regulatory mechanisms meet contemporary standards of accountability. There is no reason why the disciplinary framework governing advocates should remain exempt from similar scrutiny," the Court said.

[Read Judgement]