The Supreme Court sought BCI’s response to a plea challenging its August 2025 decision imposing a three-year ban on new law colleges. A similar petition by advocate Jatin Sharma is pending, questioning the 2025 Legal Education Rules moratorium.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to respond to a new petition challenging its August 2025 decision to impose a three-year ban on the establishment of any new law colleges in India.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the case and scheduled it for further consideration on January 30.
A similar petition has already been filed by advocate Jatin Sharma and is pending before the Court. Both petitions contest the Rules of Legal Education that introduce this three-year moratorium on legal education centers as outlined in 2025.
The BCI enacted these rules, asserting that they aim to prevent the unchecked proliferation of substandard institutions and to uphold the integrity of legal education.
ALSO READ: Foreign Law Firm Alliances Under Scrutiny: BCI Issues Notice
According to a press release from the BCI dated August 13, 2025, no existing legal education center will be allowed to launch new sections, courses, or batches without prior approval from the Council during the moratorium period.
The latest challenge comes from a society named Vocation Education Foundation (VEF), which claims it attempted to submit an application for approval to start law courses in February of the previous year, approximately six months ahead of the moratorium’s imposition by the BCI.
VEF proposed to introduce three year LLB and five year BA LLB programs at IEC Law College beginning with the 2025-26 academic year.
In a petition submitted through advocate Vivek Jain, VEF states that it requested a login ID and password from the BCI on February 12, 2025, to complete an online application for the approval process for these courses.
ALSO READ: BCI Cracks Down on Fake Online LL.M. Courses, Issues Strict Advisory
However, the BCI did not act on this request, and later that August, it enforced a three-year moratorium on the establishment of new law colleges. Notably, this moratorium included a clause indicating that it would not impact law courses for which approval applications had already been submitted but remained undecided by the BCI.
VEF asserts that it could not finish its application due to the BCI’s failure to respond to its initial request for access. Subsequently, the VEF made another request on December 22, 2025, to start law courses for the 2026-27 academic year, scheduled to begin in July or August 2026. This request has also gone unanswered by the BCI, leading VEF to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
In its petition, VEF argues that it possesses all essential financial, infrastructural, and administrative support needed to establish a new law college, including affiliation with Chaudhary Charan Singh University in Meerut.
The VEF further claims that the BCI’s moratorium is arbitrary, as it fails to differentiate between law colleges lacking infrastructure and those that are well-equipped.
The petition also states that the moratorium is unreasonable and disproportionate, violating the right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to pursue one’s occupation or trade under Article 19.
Also Read: Supreme Court to BCI: Do Not Interfere in Legal Education Matters
Additionally, the plea questions the authority of the BCI to implement such a ban on the opening of new law colleges.
The petition states,
“The Advocates Act, 1961 does not confer upon the (BCI) any power to impose a ban or moratorium on the establishment of new Centres of Legal Education. In the absence of a specific statutory provision authorizing such a prohibition, the exercise of such power is wholly impermissible and ultravires,”
VEF argues that the only reason it could not benefit from the exemption to the BCI’s moratorium, which is available to institutes with pending applications, was due to the BCI’s inaction.
The plea argues,
“Had the (BCI) acted upon the Petitioner’s request dated 12.02.2025 and provided the login ID and password or facilitated access to the BCI portal, the Petitioner would have duly submitted its online application in accordance with the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, and this would have acquired the legal status of a ‘pending application’ prior to the imposition of the moratorium on 13.08.2025. The only reason the Petitioner’s application couldn’t be submitted was due to the Respondent’s own failure to operationalize the portal or enable submission. Hence the Petitioner’s case should also be considered for exemption under Rule 3,”
Case Title: Vocation Education Foundation v. Bar Council of India
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
