Justice Surya Kant, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
BCI Should Have No Role In Legal Education, It Should Be Left To Jurists And Academicians: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court urged the Bar Council of India not to take a conservative and orthodox view in the matter of allowing convicts to pursue LLB from prison.
The Supreme Court, yesterday, dismissed the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) SLP challenging the Kerala High Court’s decision allowing two life convicts to pursue LL.B. courses through online mode, while serving their sentences.
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made it clear that the BCI should be in agreement with the High Court instead of having a conservative and orthodox view. While dismissing the SLP, the Bench kept the question of law raised in the SLP open, upon the request of the Counsel for the BCI.
The issue arose before the Kerala High Court when two individuals convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment sought permission to pursue LL.B. courses while serving their sentences. They had cleared the Kerala Law Entrance Examination and secured admission to law colleges but could not physically attend classes due to their incarceration. They filed applications under Section 389(1) CrPC., seeking suspension of their sentences and release on bail to pursue their studies. The Kerala High Court refused to suspend their sentences but held that their right to education must be upheld. It allowed them to attend classes online and directed jail authorities to facilitate their studies. The Court also permitted them to be released on interim bail for attending moot Courts, seminars, internships, and examinations.
The Bench questioned the BCI’s stand asking, “Why should BCI challenge this?”
Advocate Radhika Gautam appearing for the BCI argued, “The larger question is allowing them to appear, which is contrary to the UGC regulations."
However, the Court was not convinced and responded, “You should be hand in hand with the High Court… instead of having a conservative and orthodox view.”
Rejecting the BCI’s stance, the Court made it clear that legal education should not fall under its regulatory scope. “BCI has no business to go into legal education. Your task is to control this huge… your hands must be full to look after all these things. Legal education should be left to the jurists, to the legal academicians and have mercy on the legal education of this country", Justice Surya Kant remarked.
The BCI argued that under Section 49, as far as legal education was concerned, the Constitutional Bench had held that they have the authority to look into it and the legal education process unless that statute is challenged.
Consequently, the Bench held that the Kerala High Court’s order did not warrant interference and dismissed the SLP, keeping the question of law open.
Cause Title: Bar Council of India v. State Of Kerala & Anr. (Diary No. 11532-2025 II-B)