Supreme Court seeks BCI response to plea against background checks, CCTV at law colleges

The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the Bar Council of India (BCI) on petitions challenging two circulars issued by the bar body in September 2024 by which it introduced mandatory criminal background checks for law students, along with declarations on simultaneous academic pursuits, employment status and attendance compliance [Prakruthi Jain vs. Bar Council of India]..A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the BCI on the petitions filed by Prakruthi Jain, final-year law students of NALSAR University of Law at Hyderabad and Keyur Akkiraju, a final year law student at Symbiosis Law School..In September 2024, the BCI had issued a notification mandating strict measures for all Centers of Legal Education (CLEs) nationwide.The notification, which was addressed to universities, law colleges and students, introduced a system for conducting criminal background checks on law students and required declarations about simultaneous academic pursuits, employment status, and attendance compliance.Universities and law colleges were directed to comply with these requirements immediately.Under the notification, law students had to submit detailed declarations about ongoing or past criminal cases, simultaneous degree programs, and employment status during their LL.B. course, before they could receive their final marksheets and degrees..The petitioners argued that the circulars violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that these measures were excessive and lacked any rational basis, resulting in a chilling effect on the autonomy of legal education institutions and their stakeholders.“The Impugned Circulars issued by the Respondent Bar Council of India, under the garb of upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession, have been passed without jurisdiction and seek to infringe upon the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to freedom of profession, and right to privacy guaranteed under the Constitution of India,” the petition stated..The petitioners further contended that the directives were not referable to any provisions of the Advocates Act of 1961 or the rules made under the said Act. They argued that the circulars exceeded the regulatory authority of the BCI and intruded into areas beyond its legal mandate, making them ultra vires.The petition further highlighted the chilling effect of surveillance on academic freedom and freedom of speech, particularly in university spaces. The mandatory installation of CCTV cameras in classrooms was argued to stifle open discussions and critical debates, which are integral to academic and political spaces. “The mandate to install CCTV cameras in classrooms and other key areas of the institution and preserve these recordings for a period of one (1) year compels students and lecturers to engage in self-censorship in face of uncertain consequences… there are no adequate safeguards to ensure that the CCTV recordings will not be used as a tool to whittle freedom of speech in the form of prosecutions, sanctions, and such other measures,” the petition read.The petitioners appeared in person. .[Read Order]