In September 2024, the BCI issued a notification mandating strict new measures for all Centers of Legal Education (CLEs) across the country.
NEW DELHI: On Friday. The Supreme Court of India has asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to respond to petitions challenging two circulars issued by the bar body in September 2024. These circulars introduced mandatory criminal background checks for law students and required declarations on simultaneous academic courses, employment status, and attendance compliance.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notices to the BCI. The petitions were filed by two final-year law students, Prakruthi Jain from NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, and Keyur Akkiraju from Symbiosis Law School.
In September 2024, the BCI issued a notification mandating strict new measures for all Centers of Legal Education (CLEs) across the country.
The circulars required law students to:
- Undergo criminal background checks.
- Submit declarations about ongoing or past criminal cases.
- Declare simultaneous academic programs and employment status during their LL.B. course.
- Confirm attendance compliance.
These declarations were made mandatory for students to obtain their final marksheets and degrees. Universities and law colleges were instructed to implement these measures immediately.
The petitioners claimed the circulars violated several constitutional rights, including:
- Article 14: Equality before the law.
- Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 19(1)(g): Freedom to practice any profession.
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
According to the petitioners, “The Impugned Circulars issued by the Respondent Bar Council of India, under the garb of upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession, have been passed without jurisdiction and seek to infringe upon the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to freedom of profession, and right to privacy guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”
They argued that the circulars lacked any rational basis and imposed excessive and unreasonable restrictions, creating a “chilling effect” on the autonomy of legal education institutions. The petitioners claimed that the directives were beyond the regulatory authority of the BCI and were not supported by any provisions of the Advocates Act of 1961 or its rules, making them ultra vires.
The petition also raised concerns about the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras in classrooms and key areas of institutions. It argued that this measure would stifle academic freedom and open discussions in university spaces.
The petition stated, “The mandate to install CCTV cameras in classrooms and other key areas of the institution and preserve these recordings for a period of one (1) year compels students and lecturers to engage in self-censorship in face of uncertain consequences… there are no adequate safeguards to ensure that the CCTV recordings will not be used as a tool to whittle freedom of speech in the form of prosecutions, sanctions, and such other measures.”
Both petitioners, Prakruthi Jain and Keyur Akkiraju, appeared in person to argue their case before the Supreme Court. They highlighted how the circulars could negatively impact academic and professional freedoms, emphasizing the need to protect the autonomy of educational institutions and the rights of law students across India.
Case Title: Prakruthi Jain vs. Bar Council of India.
View Order
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
