The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the extent of the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) authority to regulate and control legal education, observing that while the Council may prescribe curriculum and standards, it cannot necessarily control the functioning of law colleges.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Girish Mittal concerning the functioning of the BCI Trust PEARL-First and the use of funds transferred to the trust.
According to CJI Surya Kant, the BCI’s role is limited to setting standards and promoting legal studies, rather than controlling education itself, which should be left to domain experts.
The proceedings primarily concerned the creation and functioning of two law colleges in Goa and Andhra Pradesh, which were established after the BCI Trust PEARL-First entered into arrangements with the respective State governments.
The petitioner has raised questions over the manner in which BCI funds are being transferred to and utilised by the trust in connection with these institutions.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan reiterated concerns regarding the transfer of funds to PEARL-First. He also referred to the role of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra in the creation of the trust and pointed out that Mishra had declared himself a lifetime trustee of the new trust.
The petitioner argued that the statutory framework governing the two colleges effectively gives the BCI powers to run institutions over which it exercises regulatory control, raising concerns regarding a conflict between the roles of a regulator and an institution’s management.
According to Bhushan, the legislative provisions give the BCI complete control over the law colleges, granting them 27 of the 35 Executive Council seats, while also tasking the Trust with running them.
He relied on the principle that a regulatory authority should not itself run an institution that it regulates, referring to earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, including the decision concerning the BCCI.
CJI Surya Kant said the Court would first have to determine the extent of the BCI’s statutory powers in the field. The CJI stated that the Court must first determine if the Bar Council holds any power to regulate and control law universities.
Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, appearing for a respondent, defended the BCI’s authority and submitted that its powers could be traced to the relevant statutory provisions.
Nadkarni argued that statutory provisions empower the Bar Council to regulate legal education, drawing a parallel to how the Medical Council of India regulates medical education and doctor enrolment.
The Bench indicated that the central question was the scope of the BCI’s regulatory authority over legal education, including the interpretation of Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Section 7(1)(h) empowers the BCI to promote legal education and establish its standards. In response, CJI Surya Kant stated that the Court intends to examine the BCI’s expertise in regulating legal education, issue general guidelines, and potentially refer the matter to a larger Bench.
Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta also raised concerns regarding the funds transferred to the BCI’s PEARL-First Trust.
Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta submitted that the BCI Trust receives crores in donations to approve newly mushrooming law colleges, promising to place supporting documents on record. Following the submission.
The Supreme Court issued notice on Mittal’s petition, which was accepted by BCI standing counsel, and directed service of a copy to SG Mehta’s office.
The post Supreme Court questions BCI’s powers over legal education, asks how far council can regulate law colleges appeared first on India Legal.