Petition in SC challenges BCI-imposed 3-year moratorium on new law colleges
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bar Council of India’ (BCI) decision to impose a three-year moratorium on opening new law colleges in India.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta on Friday asked the BCI to respond to the petition filed by one Jatin Sharma in four weeks.
Sharma – an advocate – has challenged the Rules of Legal Education, Moratorium (Three-Year Moratorium) with respect to Centres of Legal Education, 2025 on the ground that the blanket moratorium was arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business), and 21 (right to livelihood) of the Constitution.
The CBI’s decision deprived deserving aspirants of the access to legal education and penalised educational institutions which otherwise fulfilled criteria for starting law courses.
Establishment of new law colleges should be encouraged in aspirational, tribal, and underserved districts in order to reduce regional disparities in access to legal education, he said.
The BCI — which regulates legal education and legal profession in India — brought in the impugned rules, saying it was aimed at curbing unchecked mushrooming of substandard institutions and safeguarding the integrity of legal education.
Taking a cognisance of mushrooming of law colleges across India, the BCI imposed a three-year moratorium on opening of institutions – except national law universities, if proposed by a state.
In a press release issued on August 13, the BCI also said during the three-year period no existing Centre of Legal Education will be permitted to introduce new sections, courses or batches without prior approval of the Council.
The BCI said it would lay stress on the improvement of standard of existing institutions and that the ones without any proper infrastructure or faculty would be closed down in three years.
The petitioner, however, contended that instead of a uniform freeze, there should be targeted, transparent and region-specific regulatory measures to address substandard institutions and that genuine proposals for new law colleges should be entertained.
The real causes of declining educational standards—such as unchecked use of unfair means in examinations, lax enforcement of attendance rules, and commercialisation of LLM and PhD degrees—could be addressed through stricter inspections and accountability of universities, rather than stifling all new institutions, it was contended.
“Rather than exercising its statutory powers under Sections 7(1)(h) and 49 of the Advocates Act to inspect, supervise, and take punitive measures against delinquent institutions and individuals, the respondent BCI has chosen to impose a sweeping embargo on all new law colleges, a measure which lacks any rational nexus with the professed objective… and undermines competition and innovation in the education sector,” Sharma submitted.
The BCI should reconstitute its Legal Education Committee and Curriculum Development Committee with the involvement of sitting or retired judges, senior advocates, and academicians, he said, adding periodic inspections, stricter compliance audits and proportionate sanctions such as intake caps and derecognition of errant institutions should be followed.
India