The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the extent of the Bar Council of India's powers over legal education, asking whether the BCI can regulate and control law colleges and universities.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing petitions concerning the functioning of the BCI-PEARL First Trust and the establishment of law colleges by the trust. The court issued notice to the BCI and sought its response within two weeks.
The court said it would examine whether the BCI, which regulates the legal profession, also has the statutory authority to control legal education and law institutions.
“How is the BCI an expert body to regulate legal education? What do they know about legal education? There are eminent law scholars, academicians,” Chief Justice Surya Kant observed during the hearing.
The Chief Justice said the BCI could prescribe general parameters for legal education, including the curriculum and duration of law courses, but questioned whether it could go further and control law colleges.
“You can lay down the curriculum, whether it should be four or five years. You can promote legal education and for that, you can take promotional measures. But you can't control,” he said.
What does the law say
Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the BCI to promote legal education and lay down standards of such education in consultation with universities and State Bar Councils. The Act also gives the council powers relating to recognition and inspection of universities for legal education.
The question before the Supreme Court is how far those powers extend. The court is examining whether the BCI's statutory mandate to set standards also allows it to regulate the functioning of law colleges and universities.
The issue has also come up in earlier proceedings. In September, the Supreme Court had indicated that legal education may require greater involvement from specialised academic bodies. The matter was listed for further hearing on September 23.
Why the BCI-PEARL First Trust is involved
The petitions also challenge the functioning of the BCI Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research, known as PEARL First, and its role in establishing law institutions.
Petitioner Girish Mittal's counsel, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, raised questions about the creation of the trust and the transfer of BCI funds to it. The petition also concerns the establishment of law colleges through arrangements involving the trust and state governments.
The Supreme Court has now sought the BCI's response before deciding the scope of the council's authority over legal education and law institutions.
One important aspect in the hearing is that the court has not ruled that the BCI has no role in legal education. Its statutory power to promote legal education and prescribe standards is expressly provided under the Advocates Act. The present deliberation is the extent of that power and whether it permits the BCI to control the functioning of law institutions.
