In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to propose an independent, impartial, and transparent mechanism for conducting annual or periodical inspections of law colleges and universities across the country.
This direction came while a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Bombay High Court's ruling that upheld the BCI’s authority to inspect law institutions. The petition was filed by Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School, disputing the legality of an inspection notice and a related show-cause notice issued by the BCI.
"Meanwhile, the Bar Council of India shall suggest an independent, impartial and transparent mechanism for annual/periodical inspection of the Law Colleges/Law Universities," the Supreme Court stated.
Read also: “A Cow is a Cow” – Supreme Court Rejects Plea for Use of Only Indigenous Cow Milk at Tirumala Temple
The law school argued that the Legal Education Rules, 2008, under which BCI conducts inspections, were not valid under the Advocates Act. It claimed that the BCI had exceeded its statutory powers by creating inspection provisions which were not specifically mentioned in the Act.
Furthermore, the petitioner contended that since their law degrees are conferred under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, the BCI had no jurisdiction to interfere or inspect the institution. However, the Bombay High Court had dismissed this argument.
Quoting the High Court ruling:
“The Legal Education Rules, 2008, are neither ultra vires the Advocates Act nor violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.”
Read also: Supreme Court Directs Isha Foundation and Nakkheeran to Approach Delhi High Court
The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik of the Bombay High Court emphasized that maintaining the standard of legal education is a core function of the BCI under Section 7(1) of the Advocates Act. Additionally, Section 49(1) empowers the BCI to make rules regarding inspection and legal education standards.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in BCI v. Bonnie Foi Law College, which upheld BCI’s wide-ranging responsibilities, including overseeing the quality of legal education in India. The ruling clarified that Section 7(1)(m) of the Advocates Act provides residual powers, which include inspecting law schools.
"The BCI’s rule-making powers should not be interpreted narrowly, as doing so would undermine the purpose of the Advocates Act," the Court held.
Read also: Supreme Court Directs Isha Foundation and Nakkheeran to Approach Delhi High Court
Addressing the petitioner’s reference to the 2016 Maharashtra Act, the High Court stated that it is a general legislation, while the Advocates Act and Legal Education Rules are special laws. Since there is no conflict or repeal, and even if one were to assume a conflict, the central legislation (Advocates Act) would prevail due to its parliamentary origin.
Thus, the Court concluded that the BCI had the legal authority to inspect law institutions and the university could not claim immunity from such inspections.
Case Title: NATHIBAI DAMODAR THACKERSEY WOMENS UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 17029/2025
Appearance: Senior Advocate Shekhar G Devasa, along with Advocates Manish Tiwari, Thashmitha Muthanna, and Ranjit Kotian, appeared for the petitioner. The legal firm M/s. Devasa & Co. was the Advocate-on-Record.