सुप्रीम कोर्ट में सवाल: क्या BCI को कानून कॉलेजों का नियमन करने का अधिकार है?

Can BCI Regulate Law Colleges? Supreme Court To Decide

Supreme Court hears plea against the Trust created by BCI which is alleged to be running two law colleges.

The Supreme Court today has sought a response from Bar Council of India in a plea challenging the functioning of the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust and the establishment of law colleges by the Trust.

"How can BCI regulate law colleges? That's the real question. Their statutory role comes into existence only after one gets license. So, issue is whether law school can be regulated? We'd like to examine whether BCI has power to control and regulate law colleges..," CJI Surya Kant observed today while hearing the petition.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan informed the court today that BCI in 2016 had passed a resolution abolishing earlier Trust and transferred funds to a new Trust. "They create a new Trust. BCI Chairman declares himself lifetime trustee. He then establishes one law college in Goa and another in Andhra Pradesh..," the bench was informed.

Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta further informed the bench that BCI asks for donations and receives donations in for giving approval to mushrooming law colleges.

"How the BCI is expert body to regulate legal education? What do they know about legal education? There are eminent law scholars, academia...you can lay down general guidelines...but you can't control..," the CJI observed while ordering that a counter affidavit be filed in 2 weeks.

The supreme court recently also heard a petition challenging the continued occupation of the office of Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) by the same office-bearer for over a decade, alleging that the present five-year tenure notified by the BCI is contrary to the two-year tenure prescribed under the Bar Council of India Rules.

Court was told by Sr Adv Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the Bar Council of India and its office-bearers, that the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General for India shall be actively associated before any policy decision is taken by the Bar Council of India.

The Article 32 writ petition, filed through AoR Deepak Prakash on August 21, 2026, raises questions concerning the functioning, democratic accountability, transparency and institutional governance of the BCI, the statutory regulator of the legal profession constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961. The petitioner has alleged that the Respondent No. 3 has occupied the office of BCI Chairman almost continuously since November 9, 2014 and was again elected Chairman on March 2, 2025, reportedly for a seventh consecutive term.

The petition challenges a Gazette notification dated April 21, 2025, which records the tenure of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman from April 17, 2025 to April 16, 2030. According to the petitioner, Rule 12(2), Chapter I, Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules provides that the Chairman shall hold office for two years or until cessation of membership, whichever is earlier. The petition contends that the five-year tenure notified through the Gazette is therefore prima facie inconsistent with the statutory rules and cannot be enlarged through an administrative notification unless Rule 12(2) itself has been validly amended.

In a significant prayer, the petitioner has sought constitution of an Independent Committee headed by a former Supreme Court Judge or former Chief Justice of a High Court, assisted by an auditor nominated by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and other experts. The proposed committee has been asked to examine, among other things, the legality and functioning of BCI Trust PEARL-FIRST, its relationship with the BCI and IIULER, Goa, and the administration of institutional assets and funds.

Case Title: GIRISH MITTAL Vs BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: September 23, 2026

Powered by Nyaya 247 News