Madras High Court Directs Bar Council Of India To Process Law Colleges' Applications For Additional Intake Within Three Weeks, Rejects Need-Basis Bar In Absence Of Empirical Data
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, Division Bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed, directed the Bar Council of India to process within three weeks the pending applications of nine private law colleges in Tamil Nadu seeking approval for additional student intake for the academic year 2025-26. The colleges had already secured affiliation and no-objection certificates from the affiliating university and the State Government respectively, but their applications were returned by the Bar Council citing a three-year moratorium on new Centers of Legal Education declared in August 2025. The court observed that since the moratorium had since been superseded by a fresh resolution in January 2026, no complete bar on processing such applications could stand. On the Bar Council's assertion that certain regions had no demonstrated need for additional law college capacity, the bench noted that any such restriction, absent empirical data placed before the court for judicial scrutiny, could not justify declining to consider applications from already-established institutions seeking only to expand existing intake.
The writ petitions were filed by several private law colleges functioning as Centres for Legal Education seeking approval for additional intake in existing 3-year LL.B. and 5-year integrated law courses for the Academic Year 2025–26. The petitioners had obtained No Objection Certificates from the State Government and affiliation or consent of affiliation from the concerned University. Thereafter, they applied to the Bar Council of India (BCI) with the prescribed processing fee. While two institutions’ applications remained pending, the applications of seven institutions were returned along with the fees, citing a three-year moratorium notified on 13.08.2025.
The BCI relied on a policy decision placing a moratorium on establishment of new Centres for Legal Education, subject to certain exemptions under Rule 9. The petitioners contended that similarly placed institutions had been granted approval for additional intake and that the moratorium could not apply to existing institutions seeking expansion. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the BCI passed a subsequent resolution dated 11.01.2026 replacing the earlier notification.
On the Bar Council of India's three-year moratorium notification dated 13.08.2025, the court observed that the subsequent Resolution dated 11.01.2026 had effectively replaced the earlier decision, recording that "the earlier decision of three year moratorium taken through notification dated 13.08.2025 has now been replaced, therefore, the three year moratorium period is gone."
On the nature of the applications before it, the court noted that all the writ petitioners were existing Centers of Legal Education seeking approval only for additional intake in existing courses, and recorded that "the moratorium or need-basis decision would not apply to these cases. When that being the position, there could be no impediment for the BCI to process these applications and to take a decision on merit-basis."
On what merit-basis consideration entails, the court stated that "merit-basis means, if an application is submitted by any existing CLE seeking approval for such additional intake, for having such additional intake, whether necessary infrastructural and institutional facilities have been established and on verification of the same by conducting an inspection, the BCI could come to a conclusion if such Institution could be granted such approval for additional intake." The court further recorded that "such a decision could be taken by the BCI only on individual application on the merits of each of such applications, therefore, there could not be any uniform decision to be taken in this regard."
On the Bar Council's claim that data existed to establish that no new Centers of Legal Education were required in certain areas, the court observed that "this data is not available as part of the policy decision reflected in the Resolution dated 11.01.2026." The court stated that "if such a decision is taken by the BCI to put a ban on CLEs to be established hereinafter on the basis of such data, where, on need-basis, there is no further need to establish any new Institution, additional intake or additional course, such a drastic decision could be taken by the BCI supported by data and in the absence of any such data being filed before this Court for judicial scrutiny, we do not wish to comment on the decision taken by the BCI on the arena of need-basis."
On the urgency of the matter, the court observed that "making further delay in processing these applications and completing the same would no way be helpful either to the Institutions or to the Students to be admitted in these Institutions" and that delay would result in infrastructural facilities becoming "a waste not only to the Institutions, but also be a National waste."
The Court ordered that “there shall be a direction to the second respondent BCI to process the applications submitted by all these writ petitioners within a period of three weeks either from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or from the date of receipt of resubmission of the applications to be made by seven out of the nine writ petitioners, as whose applications have already been returned in limine, whichever is later.”
“The seven out of the nine writ petitioners, whose applications have been returned already by the BCI, shall resubmit the applications within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the process of considering these applications, it is open to the BCI to conduct inspections and once such inspection is completed, without further delay, keep the matter in the next meeting of the BCI for consideration for grant of approval to these Institutions only on merit-basis, that is on fulfillment of infrastructural and institutional facilities and not on the basis of the alleged need-basis. such applications could be processed and final orders could be passed on or before the completion of the three weeks' period as indicated above.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Dakshayani Reddy, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Ravi
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Selvendran, Special Government Pleader, Mr. S. R. Raghunathan Standing Counsel, Mr. S. Siva Shanmugam, Standing Counsel
Case Title: KMC College of Law & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.Nos.48845 of 2025 & batch
Bench: Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed
