The Bombay High Court has permitted 15 law colleges to retain their existing student intake capacity for the academic year 2026-27, subject to compliance with a revised schedule for appointing qualified Principals and Assistant Professors.
A Division Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash passed the order on August 7, 2026, while dealing with a batch of writ petitions concerning deficiencies pointed out by the University of Mumbai against several law colleges.
The Court recorded a mutually agreed mechanism under which the colleges would rectify the specified deficiencies within fixed timelines.
Background Of The Case
The proceedings involved several law colleges that had approached the High Court after the University of Mumbai raised deficiencies concerning their functioning and compliance requirements.
Following an earlier order dated August 5, 2026, the University held personal meetings with representatives of the colleges. It subsequently placed before the Court a chart identifying the deficiencies in each college, along with details of their programmes and intake capacity.
The University also submitted a step-by-step programme explaining how the colleges could obtain the necessary approval if they complied with the identified requirements.
Revised Timeline Agreed Before The Court
After hearing the lawyers representing the colleges and discussing the proposed schedule, certain timelines were extended with the consent of all parties.
Under the revised schedule, colleges were required to submit applications for draft advertisements by August 10, followed by University approval by August 13. Advertisements were to be published by August 18, while applications for selection committees were to be made by August 19.
Interviews were scheduled to be completed by September 16, with selection committee reports to be submitted by September 22. The colleges were required to appoint the approved teachers and Principals by September 30. The recruitment requirement was based on a 1:40 teacher-student ratio.
Court Clarifies Compliance Requirement
The Bench specifically clarified that the compliance required from the colleges was confined to appointing a duly qualified Principal and Assistant Professors in accordance with the University's guidelines, despite other deficiencies potentially being mentioned in the University's earlier communications.
The Court recorded that if the colleges successfully followed the agreed programme and timelines, there would be no reduction in their student intake capacity for the academic year 2026-27.
Undertaking And Consequences Of Non-Compliance
The colleges were directed to submit written undertakings to the Court by August 12, 2026. The undertakings must commit them to following the revised schedule and appointing qualified teaching staff and Principals.
The Bench further recorded that failure to comply would automatically revive the University's earlier orders or communications challenged in the petitions, including proceedings concerning de-affiliation of the concerned law college.
The University was directed to issue a fresh communication within one working day of receiving the undertakings, clarifying that the earlier restrictions reducing student intake would not apply for 2026-27. The Bar Council of India was also directed not to take steps against the University for granting affiliation to colleges complying with the undertaking.
Decision
The Bombay High Court made the agreed arrangement applicable to the connected petitions, including one matter that was not initially listed.
The matters were directed to be listed for compliance on October 6, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Shri Hari Educational Trust v. University of Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 9658 of 2026 with connected petitions
Judge: Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash
Decision Date: August 7, 2026
-300x169.webp)
