Supreme Court has set aside the Rs 1 lakh cost imposed on Lawyers' Foundation after the petitioner assured it would not file similar frivolous petitions.

The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a Public Interest Litigation challenging the University of Mumbai’s decision to reduce student intake by 50 per cent in several affiliated law colleges for the academic year 2026–27.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana dismissed the plea filed by Lawyers’ Foundation. However, the Court set aside the ₹1 lakh costs imposed by the Bombay High Court on the petitioner.

The PIL had challenged Mumbai University’s decision to halve the sanctioned intake for both three-year and five-year LLB courses across around 45 affiliated law colleges. The University had taken action against colleges over deficiencies relating to approved principals and teaching faculty.

The Bombay High Court had dismissed the PIL in July, holding that it did not appear to be a genuine public interest proceeding. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad had imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on Lawyers’ Foundation.

During the High Court proceedings, the Bench questioned the maintainability of the petition and the petitioner’s locus to challenge what it regarded as matters concerning the academic administration of affiliated colleges.

The Court had observed that the petitioner was “nobody to question” the University’s academic decisions, while questioning whether a lawyers’ body could effectively espouse the grievance of an educational institution.

The Bombay High Court had dismissed the PIL in July, holding that it did not appear to be a genuine public interest proceeding. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad had imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on Lawyers’ Foundation.

During the High Court proceedings, the Bench questioned the maintainability of the petition and the petitioner’s locus to challenge what it regarded as matters concerning the academic administration of affiliated colleges. The Court had observed that the petitioner was “nobody to question” the University’s academic decisions, while questioning whether a lawyers’ body could effectively espouse the grievance of an educational institution.

The seat-reduction controversy arose after Mumbai University took action against several affiliated institutions for failing to meet requirements relating to approved principals and teachers. The University subsequently permitted affected colleges to participate in admissions with reduced intake and subject to penalties. Reports at the time indicated that 39 law colleges had initially faced a 50 per cent reduction in intake, while colleges with more serious faculty deficiencies faced additional penalties.

Separately, several affected law colleges approached the Bombay High Court themselves. In August, the High Court worked out a structured compliance mechanism under which colleges could restore their full intake if they appointed duly qualified principals and assistant professors within prescribed timelines. The Court recorded that, upon successful compliance, there would be “no reduction of the student intake capacity” for the 2026–27 academic year.

Before the Supreme Court, Lawyers’ Foundation gave an assurance that it would not engage in filing such frivolous petitions in the future. Taking a “lenient view”, the Bench modified the High Court’s order only to the extent that it imposed the ₹1 lakh costs. The Supreme Court therefore declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the PIL, while removing the monetary penalty. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: LAWYERS FOUNDATION Vs UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: September 10, 2026


Tags: