On February 10, 2025, the Bombay High Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Bar Council of India's (BCI) circular that mandates criminal background checks and the installation of surveillance systems in law colleges. The court's decision underscores the judiciary's support for regulatory measures aimed at maintaining ethical standards within the legal profession.
Read Also:- Ratan Tata A Respected Name That Needs Protection from Unauthorized Use - Delhi High Court
Background of the BCI Circular
On September 24, 2024, the BCI issued a circular introducing several directives for Centers of Legal Education (CLEs) across India. The key mandates include:
Criminal Background Checks: Law students are required to disclose any ongoing or past criminal cases, including First Information Reports (FIRs), convictions, or acquittals, before receiving their final marksheets and degrees. Non-disclosure can lead to penalties.
Declarations on Academic and Employment Status: Students must declare if they are enrolled in simultaneous degree programs or other academic courses and disclose their employment status. This ensures that students are not engaged in multiple full-time commitments without proper authorization.
Attendance Compliance: Strict adherence to attendance requirements is emphasized. Institutions are instructed to implement biometric attendance systems to monitor student attendance accurately.
CCTV Surveillance: Law colleges are directed to install CCTV cameras in classrooms and other areas to ensure transparency and accountability in student conduct and institutional operations.
Advocate Ashok Yende filed a PIL challenging the legality and validity of the BCI's circular, citing concerns over privacy, fairness, and jurisdiction. He argued that the BCI had overstepped its jurisdiction and that the circular infringed upon the fundamental rights of law students.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Stays Trial Against MP Congress MLA, Questions State on Witness Intimidation Allegations
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre, observed that there was nothing illegal about the BCI seeking declarations of criminal antecedents from law students. The court noted,
"Having a criminal case does not have the effect of driving you away from education right. You can still pursue the course. It's okay. There is nothing wrong with it."
Following these observations, the petitioner chose to withdraw the case, leading to the dismissal of the PIL.
