Supreme Court Asks BCI to Suggest Independent Mechanism for Law College Inspections

The Supreme Court of India has asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to propose an impartial and transparent mechanism for the annual or periodic inspection of law colleges and universities across the country.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi issued this direction while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Bombay High Court verdict. The High Court had upheld the validity of a BCI-issued inspection notice to Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School. The Supreme Court, while issuing notice on the matter, remarked:

“Meanwhile, the Bar Council of India shall suggest an independent, impartial and transparent mechanism for annual/periodical inspection of the Law Colleges/Law Universities.”

Background of Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Case

The petitioner-law school in Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. had challenged the BCI’s inspection notice and a subsequent show-cause notice threatening suspension of its law degree offerings. The college argued that BCI lacked the authority under the Advocates Act, 1961, to conduct such inspections. It contended that the Legal Education Rules, 2008—under which the inspection was initiated—were not in harmony with the parent Act.

The law school further argued that its degrees were conferred as per the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, and therefore, the BCI had no jurisdiction to inspect or interfere.

Bombay High Court Verdict

However, the Bombay High Court dismissed these claims. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik upheld the validity of the BCI Rules. The Court stated that the power to inspect law colleges was indeed rooted in the Advocates Act, particularly Section 7(1), which outlines BCI’s duty to maintain standards of legal education. Additionally, Section 49(1) authorises the BCI to frame rules regarding such standards, including inspection of institutions.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, the High Court reiterated that BCI holds a pivotal role in promoting and regulating legal education in India. It emphasized that the rule-making powers under Section 7(1)(m) are broad and cannot be interpreted restrictively.

Constitutional and Statutory Analysis

The High Court also held that the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 do not violate the constitutional rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19(1)(g) (freedom to practise any profession).

On the conflict between the Advocates Act and the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, the Court concluded that the Advocates Act is a special law passed by Parliament, while the 2016 Act is a general state law. In case of any inconsistency, the Advocates Act would prevail, the Court stated.

It further clarified that the 2016 Act does not override or repeal provisions of the Advocates Act. Therefore, the petitioner-law school could not claim immunity from BCI inspections.

Supreme Court Intervention

While the Supreme Court has not stayed the High Court verdict, it has taken cognisance of the larger regulatory issues. It has sought BCI’s input on creating an independent inspection framework to ensure fair and transparent oversight of legal education institutions.

The matter of Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.  is being seen as significant, especially in light of concerns about the quality of legal education in India and the mushrooming of substandard law colleges.