Bombay High Court upholds BCI's power to inspect law colleges

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday upheld the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which empower the BCI to inspect law colleges and regulate legal education in India. [SNDT Women's University Law School v. State of Maharashtra].The Court dismissed a petition filed by Smt Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School, challenging the validity of certain rules of legal education that allow the BCI to conduct inspections for ensuring compliance with standards for legal education.A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik cited a apex court ruling in a similar matter to observe that "though the BCI may not have been entrusted with the direct control of legal education, in the sense in which the same is entrusted to Universities, yet the BCI retains adequate power to control courses of studies in law and power of inspection."It thus upheld the validity of the BCI’s Rules of Legal Education, 2008."For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that 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 judgment stated..The case arose from an inspection notice sent by the BCI to the petitioner law school in August 2018. The law school, which offers law degrees under SNDT University, was notified by the BCI about an inspection scheduled for August 29-31, 2018.The law school objected, claiming that the BCI lacked the statutory authority to inspect individual colleges and that its power extended only to universities. It also argued that the BCI Rules and inspection notices were arbitrary, and its actions violated the law.It was contended that the BCI did not have the power to inspect colleges independently and that the inspection provisions outlined in the 2008 Rules overstepped the body’s legal authority. The petitioner referred to certain rules, including Rule 2(iv)(a), which defines centres of legal education; Rule 2(xii)(B), which grants the BCI power to inspect centres of legal education; and Rule 14, which required BCI approval for centres of legal education to operate, arguing that they violated the principles of law and were unconstitutional. It further stated that the BCI Rules could not override the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, and that the inspection powers infringed upon the autonomy of law schools and universities..In response, the BCI argued that the Advocates Act, 1961 specifically confers powers on the BCI to regulate legal education and ensure the maintenance of standards. The BCI emphasised that its authority to inspect law colleges is critical for enforcing these standards. The Council also highlighted that the power of inspection is a part of its broader responsibility to uphold the quality of legal education in India. It said that the Rules, including those allowing inspection of law colleges, were within the scope of the powers granted to it by Parliament under the Advocates Act..After hearing both parties, the Court upheld the BCI Rules and its inspection powers, stating, "From perusal of Sections 7(1)(h), (i), (l) and (m) of the Act of 1961, it is evident that the maintenance of standards of legal education is the paramount statutory duty of the BCI." The Court further observed that the contention that Section 7(1)(h) and (i) and Section 49(1)(d) of the Act of 1961 did not indicate Parliament's intention to grant the BCI the power to inspect colleges, was "misconceived."It also highlighted that the Advocates Act, being a special law governing legal education and inspection, took precedence over earlier, more general laws, including the UGC Act, 1956."In the instant case, the Act of 1956 is a prior general Law whereas Act of 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder are later special law.".It also ruled that the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, could not override the Advocates Act, particularly in areas related to legal education. "Even assuming that there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the Act of 1961, the provisions of the Act of 1961 will prevail as they have been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of powers under entry 76 and 77 of List-I of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India."Ultimately, It upheld the validity of the BCI Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and ruled that the BCI’s inspection notices issued in 2018 were not arbitrary or illegal. It further allowed BCI to reconstitute a committee and proceed with the inspection of the petitioner law school, if necessary..Senior Advocate Milind Sathe appeared as Amicus Curiae in the case along with Advocates Gaurav Shrivastav and Aditya Mhase.Advocates Nitin Chaudhary, Siddeshvar Gaikwad, Disha Vardhan and Sachin Chandan appeared for the law college.Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan appeared for the State.Advocate Shekhar Jagtap appeared for the BCI.Advocates Yogendra Rajgor and Meghna Gowalani appeared for Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa..[Read Judgment]