The Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to respond to a petition against its three-year ban on opening new law colleges. The plea argues that the moratorium is unfair, unconstitutional, and harmful to aspiring law students.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Friday issued a notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) seeking its reply on a petition that has challenged the three-year moratorium on setting up new law colleges across the country.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition filed by advocate Jatin Sharma.
The challenge was directed against the:
Rules of Legal Education, Moratorium (Three-Year Moratorium) with respect to Centres of Legal Education, 2025.
The BCI had introduced these rules claiming that the move was necessary to control the rapid mushrooming of substandard institutions and to protect the overall quality and credibility of legal education in India.
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh High Court: Taunting Husband for Joblessness is Cruelty, Grants Divorce
According to the BCI’s official press release dated August 13, during this three-year period, no law college or university would be allowed to add new courses, sections, or batches unless it had the prior approval of the Council.
The BCI stated:
“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.”
The petition before the Supreme Court argued that the moratorium is arbitrary, excessive, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. It pointed out that such a blanket ban prevents deserving students from getting access to legal education and unfairly punishes those institutions that follow the rules.
The petitioner argued that instead of imposing a blanket freeze, the BCI should adopt targeted, transparent, and region-specific measures to identify and act against weak institutions, while still allowing genuine new law colleges to come up.
The petition highlighted that the real causes of declining education quality are issues like mass cheating in exams, poor enforcement of attendance requirements, and commercialization of postgraduate (LL.M.) and doctoral (Ph.D.) degrees.
It said that these issues can be better handled through strict inspections and stronger accountability of universities, not by banning new institutions altogether.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Stray Dogs To Be Sterilised, Released: Supreme Court; Big Win For Dog Lovers
The plea further submitted:
“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 suggested that the BCI should reform its Legal Education Committee and Curriculum Development Committee by including sitting or retired judges, senior advocates, and academicians to ensure better policy decisions.
It was also recommended that there should be regular inspections, tighter compliance checks, and proportionate punishments such as limiting student intake or derecognising non-compliant institutions instead of punishing all institutions equally.
The plea particularly stressed that new law colleges should be encouraged in aspirational, tribal, and underserved districts to improve access to legal education across India and to reduce the imbalance between developed and underdeveloped regions.
- The petition was filed through advocate Vairawan AS.
BACKGROUND
The Bar Council of India (BCI) earlier announced a three-year moratorium on establishing new Centres of Legal Education across the country.
The regulation, titled Rules of Legal Education, Moratorium (Three-Year Moratorium) with respect to Centers of Legal Education, 2025, strictly prohibits granting approval to new law colleges and restricts existing ones from introducing additional sections, courses, or batches without prior written consent from the BCI.
Why the Moratorium?
The BCI has emphasized that the moratorium is necessary to:
- Curb the mushrooming of substandard institutions that dilute the credibility of legal education.
- Prevent the commercialisation of legal education.
- Address faculty shortages and ensure the availability of qualified teachers.
- Tackle academic malpractices observed in several institutions.
With nearly 2,000 law colleges already operational, the focus, according to BCI, must now shift towards consolidation, quality enhancement, and systemic strengthening instead of unchecked expansion. The move derives authority from the Advocates Act, 1961, and comes after previous attempts in 2019 to regulate proliferation, which also saw subsequent court proceedings.
While the moratorium is strict, narrowly tailored exceptions exist. Proposals will still be considered if they cater to:
- Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Economically Weaker Sections.
- Institutions in remote, tribal, or aspirational districts.
- Specialised courses for persons with disabilities.
- Statutory State or Central Universities.
However, such applications must undergo a rigorous three-stage approval process:
- Clearance from the state government or the relevant ministry.
- University compliance verification.
- Final BCI inspection before recognition.
Applicants must also secure valid No Objection Certificates, affiliations, and demonstrate proper infrastructure in compliance with BCI’s Rules of Legal Education.
The BCI has warned of stricter inspections, compliance audits, and possible closure or derecognition for law colleges that fail to maintain prescribed standards. This signals a tough stance against institutions that compromise on academic integrity.
The urgency of such regulation is highlighted by the ongoing issue at SVKM’s Pravin Gandhi College of Law (PGCL) in Mumbai. Alumni have reported setbacks due to the college’s lapsed BCI approval (last recorded for 2016–17). This has cast doubt on the validity of degrees issued, leaving graduates unable to register with State Bar Councils to practice law or appear for judicial services.
While PGCL claims it has filed renewal applications up to 2025–26, its website continues to display “Approved by BCI” without updated documentation. At least 10 alumni have petitioned the Bombay High Court, stressing that the uncertainty hampers their professional future, especially for registration outside Maharashtra.
ALSO READ: BCI Cracks Down on Fake Online LL.M. Courses, Issues Strict Advisory
BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra has urged aspiring law students to verify a college’s BCI approval status before taking admission. He warned that once action is taken against unapproved institutions, the damage to students’ careers is often irreversible.
CASE TITLE:
Jatin Sharma v. Bar Council of India & Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on BCI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
