Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik, dismissed a petition filed by a law school challenging the authority of the Bar Council of India to inspect affiliated legal education centres and the validity of certain provisions under the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The Court upheld the Bar Council’s powers under Sections 7 and 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, to frame rules, prescribe standards, and conduct inspections of law colleges. It recorded that “maintenance of standards of legal education is the paramount statutory duty of the Bar Council of India” and observed that “the petitioner law school cannot claim any immunity from inspection by the Bar Council.” The Bench found no illegality or arbitrariness in the notices issued to the petitioner and declared the impugned Rules to be intra vires the parent statute.

The petitioner is a law school established in 2006 under a women’s university in Maharashtra. It challenged Rule 2(iv)(a), Rule 2(xii)(B) and the Proviso appended thereto, Rule 14, Rule 16(2), Rule 18(2), Rule 19(ii), Rule 19(iii) and Rule 26(a) of the Bar Council of India’s Rules of Legal Education, 2008. Additionally, the law school contested two notices dated 28 August 2018 and 19 September 2018 issued by the Bar Council of India. The first notice intimated a scheduled inspection by a committee formed under the authority of the Bar Council, and the second sought a response as to why the college and its degrees should not be suspended for failing to submit to the inspection.

Also Read: Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents made mandatory in all SLP 's challenging rejection of Bail , “Petitioners Are Taking This Court for a Ride”, slams Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council has the power to inspect universities but not affiliated colleges. It relied on definitions in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 to argue that a clear distinction exists between “universities” and “colleges.” According to the petitioner, its degree was conferred by the university, and therefore the Bar Council's inspection powers did not extend to it as an affiliated institution. The petition also challenged the jurisdiction of the Bar Council to frame the impugned Rules and contended that these provisions were ultra vires the Advocates Act.

It was further submitted that Section 7(1)(h) and (i) of the Advocates Act does not mention law colleges, and hence the inspection of such institutions falls outside the statutory scope. The petitioner maintained that the Bar Council exceeded its legislative authority and acted contrary to the Constitution, specifically Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

The amicus curiae, Dr. Milind Sathe, argued that the Bar Council of India’s role in maintaining the quality of legal education includes inspection of both universities and the institutions offering law courses affiliated to them. It was submitted that Sections 7 and 49 of the Advocates Act, when read together, provided sufficient legislative backing for such inspections. The Amicus maintained that the expression “Universities” includes affiliated centres of legal education. In support, judgments of the Supreme Court including Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College and Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University v. State of Maharashtra were cited.

The Bar Council of India also adopted the Amicus’ arguments and emphasised that its inspection rights were valid and necessary for ensuring quality legal education. The State of Maharashtra supported the petitioner and submitted that the Bar Council's actions exceeded its jurisdiction under the prevailing state education laws.

The Court considered the Advocates Act, 1961, Rules of Legal Education, 2008, Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 and University Grants Commission Act, 1956 to determine the legality of the inspection and the challenged Rules.

The Court held that “maintenance of standards of legal education is the paramount statutory duty of the BCI” and its role in framing rules and inspecting law colleges was within the legislative intent. The judgment recorded: “The BCI is under an obligation to promote legal education and to lay down the standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education.”

In discussing the rule-making authority of the BCI, the Court noted: “Section 49(1)(d) empowers the Bar Council of India to make rules for discharging its functions under the Act, and in particular such rules may prescribe... the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose.”

It found that the definition of “Centre of Legal Education” under Rule 2(iv) included departments and colleges under universities. Rule 2(xii)(B) was also considered relevant as it includes inspection of university-affiliated institutions.

The Court rejected the argument that the BCI could not inspect colleges, observing: “The power of inspection is a necessary concomitant to maintain the standards of education.” It further held: “If the rule making power of the BCI under Section 49(d) of the Act of 1961 is given a restrictive meaning, the same would be contrary to the object and purpose of Section 7(1)(h)(i)(l) and (m).”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bar Council of India v. Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law, and Bonnie Foi Law College, which supported the interpretation that the BCI's role includes enforcing academic standards through inspection and rule-making.

In addressing the ultra vires argument, the Court adopted the principles from Naresh Chandra Agarwal v. ICAI and Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of M.P., noting that delegated legislation must align with the purpose and framework of the parent Act.

The Court stated: “Section 49(1) confers particular powers without prejudice to generality of general power already conferred and therefore, particular powers are only illustrative of general power and do not in any way restrict the general power.”

The Court declared that the challenged provisions under the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 were valid and within the legislative authority granted to the Bar Council of India. Specifically, it held:

“Rule 2(iv)(a), Rule 2(xii)(B) and the Proviso appended thereto, Rule 14, Rule 16(2), Rule 18(2), Rule 19(ii), Rule 19(iii) and Rule 26(a) of the Rules of Legal Education-2008 are intra vires Section 49(1)(d) read with Section 7(1)(i) of the Act of 1961.”

The Court also upheld the legality of the impugned notices:

“The impugned notices dated 2nd August 2018 and 19th September 2018 issued by the BCI cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal or in violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.”

Also Read: Kerala HC Quashes FIR, Abusive Language in Private Call Not a 'Public Act'; Cognizable Offence Can't Be Added to Bypass Sec 155(2) CrPC Sanction

The Court recorded that a Bench, while entertaining the writ petition, had passed an ad-interim order dated 26 October 2018 “directing Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to accept the enrolment forms of the students passing out from the petitioner institution by ignoring the notice dated 28th August 2018 and show-cause notice dated 19th September 2018.”

During the interregnum, the students completed their courses, and their enrolment forms were accepted. The Court further observed: “It would, therefore, be open to the BCI to constitute a committee afresh, if so advised, to inspect the petitioner law school.” It added: “Needless to state that necessary communication in this regard would be sent to the petitioner law school. After the inspection, it would be open to BCI to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.”

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nitin Chaudhary, Advocate; Siddeshvar Gaikwad, Advocate; Disha Vardhan, Advocate; instructed by Mr. Sachin Chandan, Advocate

For the Respondents: Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, Advocate, Mr. Yogendra Rajgor, Advocate; Meghna Gowalani, Advocate

Amicus Curiae: Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate; with Gaurav Shrivastav, Advocate; and Aditya Mhase, Advocate

Case Title: Smt. Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School v. The State of Maharashtra and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:5639-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1501 of 2019

Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice M.S. Karnik

[Read/Download order]