BCI’s Three-Year Ban on New Law Colleges: Supreme Court Issues Notice in Plea

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta on Friday, issued notice returnable in four weeks.

The petition filed through AoR Vairawan A.S, under Article 32 of the Constitution, assailed the BCI’s July 6, 2025 Rules of Legal Education notification and its subsequent press release dated August 13, 2025, on the ground that the measure was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and beyond the powers vested in the Council.

The Petitioners argued that the moratorium, ostensibly introduced “to improve standards of legal education,” was a blanket prohibition with no legislative backing, empirical research, or stakeholder consultation. They contended that instead of targeting the actual causes of decline in legal education, the BCI had adopted an indiscriminate embargo that unfairly punished bona fide institutions aspiring to provide quality education.

The plea highlighted four structural issues that continue to plague legal education: unchecked use of unfair means in examinations, failure to enforce attendance rules, commercialisation of postgraduate and doctoral degrees (including LL.M. and Ph.D.), and regulatory capture, where academic leaders allegedly permit or engage in malpractice. The Petitioners maintained that these issues required strong inspection and punitive action, not a sweeping moratorium.

“The BCI, as the apex regulator under the Advocates Act, 1961, is entrusted with maintaining academic excellence and professional ethics. However, by choosing to impose a blanket ban, it has failed to exercise its statutory powers responsibly,” the petition submitted.

The Petitioners stressed that the moratorium:

-lacked rational nexus with the stated objective of improving standards,

-was overbroad and disproportionate in its scope,

-deprived deserving aspirants of access to legal education and the freedom to choose their institutions, and

-stifled competition and innovation in the education sector.

From a constitutional standpoint, the petition attacked the moratorium as violative of Article 19(1)(g), arguing that it imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on a profession or occupation. It further invoked Article 21, asserting that the right to pursue higher education formed an integral part of the right to life with dignity. The absence of a transparent or consultative process was also said to render the decision arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

As an alternative to the impugned measure, the Petitioners proposed constructive reforms, including strengthening the BCI’s Legal Education Committee and Curriculum Development Committee, expanding their membership to include retired and sitting judges, senior advocates, and academicians, and mandating regular inspections and audits. They argued that punitive action against errant institutions would be a proportionate and lawful method of ensuring quality, instead of imposing a moratorium that indiscriminately blocked potential centres of excellence.

“The impugned press release continues to cause grave prejudice to aspiring students, proposed institutions, and the public interest in enhancing legal education,” the petition stated, emphasizing that no alternative remedy existed against such a regulatory measure of general application. The Petitioners urged the Supreme Court to strike down the moratorium as unconstitutional and to direct the BCI to adopt more rational, consultative, and proportionate measures.

a) Quash the “Rules of Legal Education, Moratorium (Three-Year Moratorium) with respect to Centers of Legal Education, 2025” dated 06.07.2025 as unconstitutional and void.

b) Direct the Respondent to replace the blanket moratorium (13.08.2025) with targeted, transparent, and region-specific measures to improve legal education standards.

c) Direct the Respondent to reconstitute the Legal Education and Curriculum Development Committees with participation from Judges (sitting/former), Senior Advocates, and experienced academicians.

d) Strengthen enforcement of the Legal Education Rules, 2008 against sub-standard law colleges through inspections, sanctions, and compliance measures, instead of imposing a blanket moratorium on new law colleges.

e) Withdraw or amend the “Three-Year Moratorium Rules” and replace them with transparent, region-specific regulations to ensure quality without arbitrary exclusion.

f) Implement Advocate Welfare Schemes, including:

-Financial support for young lawyers,

-A pension scheme for senior/retired advocates.

g) Frame welfare schemes for senior citizens and differently-abled advocates by providing monthly remuneration or equivalent benefits.

h) Introduce comprehensive Medi-claim/Insurance Schemes for advocates covering health and life risks.

i) Mandate time-bound disposal of disciplinary proceedings before State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India by fixing statutory timelines.

j) Ensure timely payment of salaries to staff of State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India.

k) Upgrade and maintain Bar Council infrastructure, including accessibility, seating, and technological facilities.

l) Digitise and streamline the advocate enrolment process with an online, trackable system and fixed timelines.

m) Constitute an impartial Legal Education Committee with independent inspection teams for law colleges to ensure fair and uniform oversight.

n) Standardise and improve legal education quality nationwide by setting consistent benchmarks for teaching, infrastructure, and curriculum.