NEW DELHI : The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will examine whether the Bar Council of India (BCI) has the power to control and regulate law colleges and universities. The court questioned whether the BCI’s statutory role as a regulator begins only after a licence is granted.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana Bagchi issued notice on petitions questioning the functioning of the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust and the setting up of law colleges by the trust. The bench sought a response from the BCI within two weeks.
SUPREME COURT QUESTIONS BCI’S ROLE
During the hearing, the bench asked, “How can BCI regulate law colleges? That’s the real question.” The Chief Justice also questioned whether the BCI was an expert body to regulate legal education.
“How is the BCI an expert body to regulate legal education? What do they know about legal education?” he asked orally.
The Chief Justice said that eminent law scholars and academicians could help frame general guidelines, including curriculum requirements, but questioned whether the BCI could exercise direct control over institutions.
PETITION CHALLENGES BCI TRUST
Appearing for petitioner Girish Mittal, advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged that the BCI passed a resolution in 2016 abolishing an earlier trust and transferring its funds to a new one.
He referred to the creation of the Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research in 2020. Bhushan alleged that the trust deed made 11 managing trustees “original and permanent trustees”, regardless of their tenure as BCI members.
He said the trust later established one law college each in Goa and Andhra Pradesh.
The BCI’s counsel told the court that a resolution had been passed stating there would be no lifetime trustees and that their tenure would end with their BCI membership.
BCI CHAIRPERSON’S TENURE ALSO UNDER SCRUTINY
The Supreme Court had earlier said BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra’s position was only “pro tem” until a newly constituted lawyers’ body elects its office-bearers.
The court also directed that policy decisions be taken in consultation with the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
An earlier petition filed by advocate Yogamaya M G challenged Mishra’s continued tenure. It argued that BCI Rule 12(2) provides for a two-year term for the chairman and vice-chairman, or until they cease to be members, whichever is earlier.
The petition also challenged the April 21, 2025 gazette notification extending Mishra’s tenure until 2030 and sought an independent committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge or former high court chief justice.
The court is now examining the BCI’s powers over legal education, issues concerning the trust and the tenure of its chairperson.
