The Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea regarding the governance and regulatory powers of the Bar Council of India (BCI) in relation to its affiliated trusts and legal education institutions.

The Bar Council has also released the Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2026, for public consultation, inviting inputs from State Bar Councils, Bar Associations, law universities, and legal practitioners before July 31, 2026. The proposed legislation established a statutory framework empowering the BCI and State Bar Councils to create dedicated welfare funds and trusts. 

The Court comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice in the petition and sought reply from the Bar Council of India.

Chief Justice Kant questioned, "Before any of these matters, first we would like to determine whether Bar Council has any power to regulate and control the law universities...If there is a Constitution Bench, we will refer the matter to a larger Bench. But we would like to examine this issue. The question is that very basic question: that from how is the Bar Council of India an expert body to regulate legal education? What do they know about legal education?"


Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the Petitioner

Bhushan submitted, "Now, the BCI in 2016 passed a resolution abolishing their earlier trust of 1974 and transferring all the funds to a new trust to be created. ₹39 crores was transferred, which is the subject—which was the subject matter of a CBI investigation. What has happened to that CBI investigation, we don't know, because we have annexed a letter written by the CBI officer to the BCI saying that we want to know on what basis you transferred, how you utilized this money, etc."

"Now, they create a new trust, and in this trust, this gentleman who was at that time in 2019 the Chairman of the Bar Council, who is also the present Chairman of the Bar Council, he declares himself as a lifetime trustee of that trust. And then, he establishes two or one law colleges in Goa and one other law college in Andhra. Two Acts are passed, which we have challenged: the Andhra Act and the Goa Act", he added.

He submitted that the provisions of that Act essentially make the Bar Council totally in charge of the running of those colleges. Under the challenged enactments, 27 out of 35 members of the Executive Council of these institutions were to be nominated by the BCI, effectively allowing the regulatory body to run the very institutions it was mandated to regulate.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, "In Item 28, we were really concerned that assets of the Bar Council of India, which is a statutory body in perpetuity, were being put into the hands of another juristic body, namely a trust, who had permanent trustees, initially by ex-officio and thereafter on individual capacity. Now, if these two are independent entities and thereby create a situation of conversion of assets of the Bar Council of India, which they are not entitled to."

The Bench remarked that the vires of the said acts and the trust issue need to be raised independently.

In response to concerns raised regarding lifetime trusteeship, counsel appearing for the BCI clarified that a subsequent resolution had been passed by the Council. It was submitted that the concept of a lifetime trustee had been done away with, and any trusteeship was now strictly co-terminus with the holding of ex-officio positions within the BCI.

As regards the challenge to the vires of the Acts separately, Bhushan submitted, "The Acts themselves say that the Bar Council will nominate about 27 out of the 35 members on the Executive Council of these law colleges. And the trust says that it is running the trust. In fact, the Acts also say that the trust will run these law colleges, and then provide that the Bar Council will nominate—apart from that founding, the Chairman of the Bar Council who makes himself lifetime trustee of this trust—he, in this Act, the provisions are that 27 of the 35 members of the Executive Council will be nominated by the Bar Council, even though the trust is running these colleges, etc. The Acts say that the trust will run this law college; the Objects and Reasons also say that."

Chief Justice Kant said, "Therefore, when you challenge the piece of legislation, that ultimately whether it is exceeding the power beyond their scope, whatever constitutional principles violation, you'll have to raise all those grounds...The very first law school is by BCI."

Bhushan added, "It(The Acts) mentions both the trust as well as the Bar Council simultaneously...how can the regulator run an institution which it is supposed to regulate? In fact, in their resolution of 2019 of the Bar Council"

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "I'm not sure whether that matter is today or another date. How can BCI regulate the law colleges?... That is the real question. Their statutory role comes into power or existence only after passing the law when you get a license. So the real issue will be whether the law school itself can be regulated by them. If they are not to be regulated, then this conflict does not arise. Then all these issues will be overlapping."

The Court emphasized that a statutory regulatory body like the BCI could not convert or divert its assets into a separate juristic entity under private or permanent management.

The Court further considered the statutory scheme governing legal education under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Bench questioned whether the BCI possessed the statutory mandate to directly run and administer educational institutions, remarking that its regulatory role was primarily intended for laying down general standards and guidelines rather than exercising operational control over law universities.

Additionally, the Petitioners also drew attention to a 2019 BCI resolution wherein the 1974 trust was declared defunct, leading to the transfer of BCI assets and substantial private donations into the new trust.

Having considered the initial submissions, the Bench issued notice in the interlocutory applications. Notice was accepted by counsel present on behalf of the Bar Council of India, while the presence of the learned Solicitor General was noted for the Union of India.

The Court had previously quashed the Bar Council of India's (BCI) directives against the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, observing that the Bar Council of India has been statutorily created and does not confer any express or implied power upon the said Council or any State Bar Council to take any disciplinary or punitive action against the students of law.

The matter was directed to be listed for detailed hearing on a subsequent date.

Cause Title: Girish Mittal v. Bar Council of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) No.1115/2026]

Tags: