What Do You Know About Legal Education? Supreme Court Questions Bar Council’s Role in Higher Education

The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised sharp questions over the Bar Council of India’s authority to control law universities, observing that the statutory body can promote legal education and set academic standards but cannot run educational institutions directly.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, orally questioned the BCI’s technical expertise in managing academic affairs. Hearing a petition filed by Girish Mittal, the court issued formal notice to the Bar Council of India and directed the petitioner to serve a copy to the Solicitor General’s office.

Conflict of Interest and Misuse of Trust Funds Alleged

The petition challenges the transfer of public and regulatory funds to a newly created entity called the BCI Trust PEARL-First, which replaced the original 1974 BCI trust in 2020. The petitioner questioned the operational setup of two law colleges established in Goa and Andhra Pradesh through state government agreements involving this new trust.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the governing statutes of these institutions effectively hand total administrative control to the regulator. Bhushan pointed out that 27 out of 35 members on the executive council of one university are nominated by the BCI.

"The principle that a regulator cannot run an institution which it is regulating has been laid down by this Court in many cases," Bhushan contended, citing precedents set in sports administration cases involving the BCCI. He told the court that BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, who has led the body since 2012, declared himself a lifetime trustee of the PEARL-First trust.

Senior advocate Shobha Gupta also voiced serious concerns regarding financial transparency, alleging that donations worth crores of rupees are flowing into the trust in exchange for approving various law colleges across the country.

Court Hints at Larger Bench Review for Section 7 Guidelines

Addressing the statutory scope of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bench highlighted the distinction between promotion and operational control under Section 7(1)(h), which mandates the BCI to promote legal education and lay down standards for law degree recognition.

"You can lay down the curriculum, whether it should be four years, five years. You can promote legal education and for that, you can take promotional measures. But you can't control it. What do you know about legal education? There are experts," CJI Surya Kant remarked during the proceedings.

Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, defending the current administrative structure, argued that the BCI holds legitimate power under its founding Act, comparing its oversight mechanisms to how the Medical Council of India regulates medical institutions and doctor enrollments.

The Supreme Court indicated that it would examine the full extent of the regulator's powers under Section 7(1)(h) to frame clear national guidelines, adding that it may refer the dispute to a larger bench if structural legal interpretations require wider judicial review.