HC refuses to interfere with BCI’s rules for legal education

The Bombay high court (HC) has refused to interfere with the legal education rules, framed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) in September 2008, which requires law

The Bombay high court (HC) has refused to interfere with the legal education rules, framed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) in September 2008, which requires law colleges to obtain fresh approval every five years.

HT Image

The division bench of justice AS Chandurkar and justice Amit Borkar on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Law College of Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University challenging clause 2(xxiv) of the rules which restricts validity of permanent approvals to five years.

The law college moved the HC in 2018 after the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa stopped enrolling students who graduated from the law college on the grounds that the college’s approval had lapsed.

The college then approached BCI seeking fresh approval but after BCI demanded ₹21.5 lakh for the same, the college decided to move the court.

The college argued the 2008 rules were ultra vires which means it was beyond the rule-making power conferred by the BCI Act. The college also said the rules could not be applied to the college as it was established much before the introduction of the 2008 rules and in view of the fact that the college had been granted permanent approval in 1995 under the Legal Education Rules prevailing at the time.

The bench, however, refused to accept the contention. It said BCI has been conferred necessary power to prescribe standards of legal education to be observed by universities for the purpose of discharging its function of promoting legal education and laying down standards of legal education.

“This rule-making power would thus include power to modify existing rules with a view to maintain and improve standards of legal education in universities,” said the bench.

The court added that the expression “standards of legal education to be observed by the universities” in Section 49(1)(d) of the BCI Act, 1961, does not envisage a one-time exercise to be undertaken by BCI or universities.

“Maintaining standards of education cannot be confined to a time frame nor can legal education remain static,” the bench said while dismissing the petition, adding, “It has to evolve with the passage of time keeping pace with developments in legal fields across the world.”