Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court  issued notice on two public interest litigations (PILs) challenging circulars issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) in September 2024. The circulars mandated criminal background checks, installation of biometric attendance systems, and CCTV surveillance at Centres of Legal Education (CLEs). They also required declarations of simultaneous employment or dual degrees before enrolling students in legal education or practice. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the notice to the BCI, providing six weeks for response.

The petitions were filed by Prakruthi Jain and Keyur Akkiraju, final-year law students from NALSAR University, who appeared as parties-in-person. The petitioners sought relief from what they described as overbroad and arbitrary mandates infringing upon constitutional rights, including the right to privacy and freedom of expression.

The petitioners challenged two circulars issued by the BCI. The first circular, dated September 24, 2024, required CLEs to implement criminal background checks for students, install biometric attendance systems, and place CCTV cameras in classrooms and other areas. The second circular, dated September 25, 2024, directed state bar councils to conduct criminal background verifications for enrolling advocates and mandated declarations from advocates regarding simultaneous degrees and employment.

The petitioners contended that the circulars exceeded the BCI's jurisdiction and violated constitutional rights. They argued that the mandates for criminal background checks were inconsistent with the principles of a democratic society, infringing on individual liberties guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Specifically, the requirement for CLEs to withhold degrees or final marksheets pending BCI approval based on criminal declarations was argued to be arbitrary and violative of the right to equality.

The petitioners submitted: "The failure to classify and differentiate between 'ongoing FIR, criminal case, conviction, or acquittal' does not meet the reasonable classification test under Article 14. Further, there is no rational nexus between the aim sought to be achieved—upholding ethical standards in the legal profession—and the mandatory implementation of a Criminal Background Check System." They also argued that requiring disclosure of acquittals lacked legal justification.

The petitioners further submitted that the disciplinary powers conferred on BCI by the circulars lacked procedural safeguards. They stated that the circulars empowered the BCI to withhold marksheets and degrees without formulating clear policies, making the process "vague, overbroad, and arbitrary."

Regarding the installation of CCTV cameras, the petitioners argued that such surveillance would violate the right to privacy and have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression, particularly in educational spaces that foster debate and dialogue. They submitted: "CCTV surveillance in classrooms would deter free exchange of ideas, compelling students and educators to engage in self-censorship out of fear of surveillance."

Similarly, the biometric attendance system was contested on the grounds of privacy. The petitioners asserted that biometric data constitutes sensitive personal information, the collection of which must be consensual and safeguarded against misuse. They claimed: "The mandatory collection of biometric data without consent violates the right to privacy and lacks adequate safeguards against data leaks and misuse."

The second circular, requiring declarations about dual degrees and employment, was challenged for allegedly imposing unreasonable restrictions on the right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g). The petitioners argued: "The BCI has imposed arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on legal professionals without adequate statutory backing or justification."

After hearing the petitioners, the bench granted permission for them to argue in person and condoned the delay in filing. It issued notice to the BCI, directing a response within six weeks.

Case Title: Prakruthi Jain v. Bar Council of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 47760/2024
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta