Supreme Court to examine BCI's power over law colleges

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will examine whether the Bar Council of India has the power to regulate law colleges and universities, noting that its statutory role begins only after a licence is granted. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana orally asked how the BCI is an expert body on legal education. Hearing petitions on the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust and its law colleges, it sought the BCI's response in two weeks.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 23 Sept 2026, 3:23 pm IST

Source

Hindustan Times — India · read the original report ↗

#supreme court#bar council of india#legal education#law colleges#judiciary

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana will examine whether the BCI can regulate law colleges and universities. — Attributed in source to the bench; quoted as oral remarks, not a final order.
The court issued notice on the petitions and sought the BCI's response within two weeks. — Stated as court action in the source; no order copy cited.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioner Girish Mittal, said BCI passed a 2016 resolution abolishing an earlier trust and transferring funds to a new trust, and that a 2020 trust deed named 11 managing trustees as permanent. — Attributed allegation by counsel; unverified in source.
The trust set up one law college each in Goa and Andhra Pradesh. — Attributed to the petitioner's counsel; not independently confirmed in source.
An April 21, 2025 gazette notification extends BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra's tenure until 2030, challenged in a separate plea by advocate Yogamaya M G. — Figure and date appear in source, attributed to the plea.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

This is not merely a dispute about education regulation — it is about where power sits in the politics of the legal profession. By agreeing to examine whether the BCI can regulate law colleges and universities, the Supreme Court has put one of the bar body's most potent levers — approvals and recognition of institutions — under review. Separate petitions on trust funds, alleged "permanent trustees" and the chairperson's tenure are converging into sustained institutional pressure on the BCI leadership, while the body's submission that trusteeship will now end with BCI membership looks like pre-emptive accommodation.

The bench's observation that the BCI's statutory role begins only after a licence is granted reads as a pointer towards narrowing, not expanding, its regulatory reach.
The question of whether the BCI is an "expert body" revives a long-running contest over whether legal education should be governed by the profession or by academics.
Earlier remarks describing the chairperson's position as "pro tem", plus the direction to consult the Attorney General and Solicitor General on policy, already constrain the leadership's room for autonomous action.
The allegation that the trust set up one law college each in Goa and Andhra Pradesh sharpens the politically potent conflict-of-interest question of a regulator entering the space it regulates.
The two-week deadline puts the BCI on the defensive and could energise factional politics and electoral calculations within bar bodies.

What to watch — Watch how forcefully the BCI defends its regulatory jurisdiction in its reply, and whether state bar councils and legal-education institutions line up for or against it.

The court's remarks were oral and no ruling has been delivered on the BCI's powers; the allegations about the trust and individuals remain unproven.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 7 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Bar Council of India (BCI), the statutory body for advocates, also exercises wide control over legal education, recognising law colleges and prescribing norms. The Supreme Court is hearing petitions questioning the functioning of the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust and law colleges set up by a BCI-linked trust, alongside a separate plea challenging the prolonged tenure of BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra. On Wednesday, a bench led by CJI Surya Kant said it will examine whether the BCI has any power at all to control and regulate universities and law colleges, stressing that the BCI's statutory role begins only after a licence to practise is granted.

Key facts

A Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it will examine whether the BCI has the power to control and regulate universities/law colleges.
The CJI orally remarked that the BCI's statutory role "comes into existence only after one gets licence" and asked how BCI is an expert body on legal education.
The bench said the BCI may lay down general guidelines, such as whether the curriculum should be four or five years, but "you can't control".
The court issued notice on the petitions and sought the BCI's response within two weeks.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioner Girish Mittal, said the BCI passed a 2016 resolution abolishing an earlier trust and transferring funds to a new trust.
Bhushan pointed to the 2020 creation of the Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research, whose deed made 11 managing trustees "original and permanent trustees".
The trust set up one law college each in Goa and Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner contended; BCI's counsel said a resolution now bars lifetime trustees and makes trustee tenure co-terminus with BCI membership.
A separate plea by advocate Yogamaya M G challenges the April 21, 2025 gazette notification extending BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra's tenure until 2030, citing Rule 12's two-year term.

Timeline

Till 2012Manan Kumar Mishra first elected as BCI chairman, per the plea.
2014Mishra briefly demitted office and returned as chairman in November that year, remaining in the post since.
2016BCI passed a resolution abolishing an earlier trust and transferring its funds to a new trust, per Prashant Bhushan.
2020Creation of the Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research.
April 21, 2025Gazette notification extending Mishra's tenure as BCI chairperson until 2030, now under challenge.
Earlier (date not stated in the source)Supreme Court remarked Mishra's position was only "pro tem" and directed policy decisions be taken in consultation with the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
Wednesday (date not stated in the source)Bench said it will examine BCI's regulatory power over law colleges; notice issued, BCI response sought in two weeks.

Who has a stake

Bar Council of India — Its authority to regulate legal education and law colleges, and the conduct of its trusts, are under judicial scrutiny; must reply in two weeks.
Supreme Court bench (CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi, V Mohana) — Deciding the scope of BCI's statutory power over universities and law colleges.
BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust and the BCI education trust — Their functioning, trustee structure and the law colleges they established in Goa and Andhra Pradesh are challenged.
Petitioners Girish Mittal (through Prashant Bhushan) and advocate Yogamaya M G — Seeking accountability over trust funds, permanent trustees and Mishra's prolonged tenure as chairperson.
Manan Kumar Mishra, BCI chairperson — His tenure, held "pro tem" by the court and extended to 2030 by notification, faces a removal plea.
Law colleges, universities and students — Regulatory certainty over curriculum, recognition and standards of legal education.

Why it matters

The BCI's grip over legal education decides which law colleges can run, what they teach and how long the degree lasts, affecting thousands of students and institutions. If the Supreme Court finds its statutory role begins only at the licensing-of-advocates stage, the architecture of legal education regulation in India could be reworked. The case also tests internal governance in a statutory body whose own trusts run law colleges and whose chairperson's tenure is contested.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Bench hearing the case: CJI Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
Court's observation: BCI's statutory role arises only after a licence is granted; it may issue general guidelines but not "control" law colleges.
Trust named in the case: Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research, created 2020; deed named 11 permanent managing trustees.
Rule 12 of the BCI prescribes a two-year term for chairman and vice-chairman, or until cessation of membership, whichever is earlier.
April 21, 2025 gazette notification extended BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra's tenure until 2030.
Court earlier held Mishra's position as "pro tem", with policy decisions to be taken in consultation with the Attorney General and Solicitor General.

Mains framing

The case raises a basic question of institutional competence: should a professional self-regulatory body of advocates also control academic institutions? The Supreme Court's oral view that the BCI's statutory role \"comes into existence only after one gets licence\" and its question on whether the BCI is an expert body on legal education point to a mismatch between regulating entry to the bar and setting academic standards, which law scholars and academicians may be better placed to do. The allegations in the petitions deepen the concern: a 2016 resolution shifting trust funds, a 2020 trust deed naming 11 \"original and permanent\" trustees regardless of BCI membership, law colleges set up by that trust in Goa and Andhra Pradesh, and a chairperson whose tenure, extended by a gazette notification to 2030, is held only pro tem. The conflict of interest in a regulator's trust running the very institutions it recognises is central. A way forward consistent with the court's own framing would be for the BCI to confine itself to broad guidelines such as course duration, with academic regulation entrusted to bodies with educational expertise, and internal safeguards like trustee tenure co-terminus with BCI membership (which BCI's counsel said has been resolved) plus an independent committee headed by a former judge, as the petitioner seeks.

Key terms

Bar Council of India (BCI): Statutory body for advocates whose regulatory role, the court noted, arises after a licence to practise is granted; also regulates legal education.
BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust: Trust whose functioning and establishment of law colleges are questioned in the petitions before the Supreme Court.
Rule 12 (BCI): Prescribes a two-year term for the BCI chairman and vice-chairman, or until cessation of membership, whichever is earlier.
Pro tem: Temporary; the court described Mishra's chairpersonship as pro tem until a freshly constituted lawyers' body elects office-bearers.
Issuing notice: Court's direction to the opposite party, here the BCI, to file a response — sought within two weeks.
Original and permanent trustees: Status the 2020 trust deed allegedly gave 11 managing trustees irrespective of their tenure as BCI members.

Practice questions

Should a professional self-regulatory body like the Bar Council of India regulate legal education? Critically examine in light of the Supreme Court's observation that its statutory role begins only after a licence is granted.
Discuss the conflict-of-interest concerns when a statutory regulator's trust establishes institutions that the regulator itself recognises, with reference to the BCI trust law colleges in Goa and Andhra Pradesh.
Examine how tenure rules and internal governance norms, such as Rule 12 of the BCI, safeguard accountability in statutory professional bodies.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyMonsoon withdraws from parts of northwest India, including Delhi →

← All stories