Bombay High Court Upholds BCI’s Authority To Inspect Law Colleges; Dismisses SNDT Law School’s Challenge

The Bombay High Court has upheld the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules of Legal Education, 2008, affirming the regulatory body's authority to inspect law colleges and oversee legal education standards in India.

The Court dismissed a petition filed by Nathibai Damodar Thackersey (SNDT) Women’s University Law School, which had challenged certain provisions of the BCI’s inspection powers.

Court’s Ruling on BCI’s Authority

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik ruled that the BCI, while not directly controlling legal education like universities, retains sufficient authority to regulate law courses and conduct inspections.

Citing a Supreme Court precedent, the Court observed, “Though the BCI may not have been entrusted with the direct control of legal education, in the sense in which the same is entrusted to universities, yet the BCI retains adequate power to control courses of studies in law and power of inspection.”

The Court, therefore, upheld the validity of several provisions of the BCI’s Rules of Legal Education, 2008, including Rule 2(iv)(a), Rule 2(xii)(B), Rule 14, Rule 16(2), Rule 18(2), Rule 19(ii), Rule 19(iii), and Rule 26(a), affirming that they fall within the powers granted to the BCI under Section 49(1)(d) read with Section 7(1)(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Background of the Case

The legal battle began in August 2018 when the BCI issued an inspection notice to SNDT Women’s University Law School, scheduling a visit for August 29-31, 2018. The law school challenged the BCI’s authority, contending that:

- The BCI had no statutory power to inspect individual law colleges, only universities.

- The inspection rules were arbitrary and violated principles of law.

- The provisions in the 2008 Rules encroached upon the authority of universities and state laws like the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.

The petitioner specifically contested rules such as Rule 2(iv)(a), which defines “centres of legal education,” and Rule 2(xii)(B), which grants the BCI the power to inspect them. It argued that these provisions were unconstitutional and infringed upon the autonomy of universities.

BCI’s Stand on Inspection Powers

In response, the BCI asserted that the Advocates Act, 1961, grants it statutory authority to regulate legal education and ensure high academic standards. The BCI emphasized that:

1. The power of inspection is a critical tool to uphold the quality of legal education in India.

2. The rules allowing inspections fall within the legislative mandate of the Advocates Act.

3. The Advocates Act, being a special law governing legal education, overrides general laws like the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956.

Court’s Observations

After hearing both sides, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the BCI, emphasizing that maintaining legal education standards is a statutory duty of the BCI under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Bench stated, “From perusal of Sections 7(1)(h), (i), (l) and (m) of the Act of 1961, it is evident that the maintenance of standards of legal education is the paramount statutory duty of the BCI.”

The Court rejected SNDT’s argument that the Advocates Act does not authorize college inspections, calling it “misconceived.” It held that:

- The Advocates Act takes precedence over the UGC Act, 1956, as it is a later special law.

- The Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, cannot override the Advocates Act regarding legal education regulations.

“Even assuming that there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the Act of 1961, the provisions of the Act of 1961 will prevail as they have been enacted by Parliament under entries 76 and 77 of List-I of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India," the Division Bench stated.

Conclusion

Upholding the validity of the BCI Rules of Legal Education, 2008, the Court ruled that the inspection notices issued in 2018 were neither arbitrary nor illegal.

"We hold that Rule 2(iv) (a), Rule 2(xii)(B) and the Proviso appended thereto, Rule 14, Rule 16(2), Rule 18(2), Rule 19(ii), Rule 19(iii) and Rule 26(a) of the Rules of Legal Education-2008 are intra vires Section 49(1)(d) read with section 7(1)(i) of the Act of 1961. The impugned notices dated 2nd August 2018 and 19th September 2018 issued by the BCI cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal or in violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India," the Court ordered.

The Court further permitted the BCI to reconstitute an inspection committee and proceed with the assessment of the petitioner law school if necessary. "It would, therefore, be open to the BCI to constitute a committee afresh, if so advised, to inspect the petitioner law school. Needless to state that necessary communication in this regard would be sent to the petitioner law school. After the inspection, it would be open to BCI to proceed with the matter in accordance with law," it directed.

Cause Title: Smt. Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2025:BHC-OS:5639-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocates Gaurav Shrivastav, Aditya Mhase, Nitin Chaudhary, Siddeshvar Gaikwad, Disha Vardhan, Sachin Chandan

Respondent: Addl Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan, Advocates Shekhar Jagtap, Yogendra Rajgor, Meghna Gowalani

Click here to read/download the Judgment