The BCI countered these claims, asserting that the Advocates Act, 1961, grants it legal authority to regulate legal education and maintain its quality. The council stressed that inspections are crucial for ensuring compliance with legal education standards.
Bombay: The Bombay High Court has upheld the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, framed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). These rules empower the BCI to inspect law colleges across the country and regulate legal education standards.
ALSO READ: BCI (Bar Council of India): Powers and Functions Under The Advocates Act, 1961
The case was filed by Smt Nathibai Damodar Thackersey (SNDT) Women’s University Law School against the State of Maharashtra and BCI. The law school challenged the legal validity of certain BCI rules that allow it to inspect law colleges.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik dismissed the petition. The court relied on a Supreme Court ruling in a similar case and observed that:
“Though the BCI may not have been entrusted with the direct control of legal education, in the sense in which the same is entrusted to Universities, yet the BCI retains adequate power to control courses of studies in law and power of inspection.”
The court ruled that the BCI’s Rules of Legal Education, 2008, were valid and legally sound. The judgment specifically upheld the following rules:
- Rule 2(iv)(a) – Defines centres of legal education
- Rule 2(xii)(B) – Grants BCI power to inspect law colleges
- Rule 14 – Requires BCI approval for law colleges
- Rule 16(2), Rule 18(2), Rule 19(ii), Rule 19(iii), and Rule 26(a) – Relate to maintaining legal education standards
ALSO READ: Bar Council of India Endorses Criminal Law Reforms
The court stated:
“For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that Rule 2(iv) (a), Rule 2(xii)(B) and the Proviso appended thereto, Rule 14, Rule 16(2), Rule 18(2), Rule 19(ii), Rule 19(iii) and Rule 26(a) of the Rules of Legal Education-2008 are intra vires Section 49(1)(d) read with section 7(1)(i) of the Act of 1961.”
Case Background
The legal battle began when the BCI issued an inspection notice to the SNDT Women’s University Law School in August 2018. The BCI scheduled an inspection for August 29-31, 2018, which the law school strongly opposed.
The law school argued that:
- BCI lacked legal power to inspect individual colleges and could only oversee universities.
- The inspection rules were arbitrary and unconstitutional.
- The BCI’s inspection authority clashed with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956, and the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.
The BCI countered these claims, asserting that the Advocates Act, 1961, grants it legal authority to regulate legal education and maintain its quality. The council stressed that inspections are crucial for ensuring compliance with legal education standards.
The BCI argued:
“From perusal of Sections 7(1)(h), (i), (l) and (m) of the Act of 1961, it is evident that the maintenance of standards of legal education is the paramount statutory duty of the BCI.”
The court rejected the argument that the BCI lacks the power to inspect law colleges, stating that such a claim was “misconceived.” It emphasized that the Advocates Act, 1961, as a special law, prevails over general laws like the UGC Act, 1956.
“In the instant case, the Act of 1956 is a prior general law whereas Act of 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder are later special law.”
The court also ruled that the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, could not override the Advocates Act, 1961, in matters related to legal education.
“Even assuming that there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the Act of 1961, the provisions of the Act of 1961 will prevail as they have been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of powers under entry 76 and 77 of List-I of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India.”
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the BCI Rules of Legal Education, 2008, ruling that the inspection notices issued in 2018 were not illegal or arbitrary. The court permitted the BCI to reconstitute a committee and proceed with the inspection of the petitioner law school if required.
ALSO READ: Bar Council of India Raises Strong Objections to Proposed Advocates Amendment Bill, 2025
Legal Representation
- Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Milind Sathe
- Petitioner’s Lawyers: Advocates Nitin Chaudhary, Siddeshvar Gaikwad, Disha Vardhan, and Sachin Chandan
- State of Maharashtra: Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan
- Bar Council of India: Advocate Shekhar Jagtap
- Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa: Advocates Yogendra Rajgor and Meghna Gowalani
