Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Examines Bar Council of India's Authority Over Legal Education
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Issue: Scope of BCI’s Regulatory Power
On September 23, 2026, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notice in the writ petition Girish Mittal v. Bar Council of India. The Court will decide whether the Bar Council of India (BCI) can “control and regulate” law colleges and universities, or is limited to setting general guidelines such as curriculum length, under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Background & Context
The petition challenges the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust, which runs the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER) in Goa and a similar institute in Andhra Pradesh. Advocate Prashant Bhushan argues that the Trust’s governance—27 of 35 executive-council members nominated by the BCI and a lifetime trusteeship claimed by Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra—creates a regulator-operator conflict. The petition also contests a Gazette notification dated April 21 2025 that extends Mishra’s chairmanship to April 16 2030, contrary to Rule 12(2)’s two-year term limit.
Timeline
- Nov 9 2014 – Mishra first assumes BCI chairmanship.
- Mar 2 2025 – Re-elected for a seventh term.
- Apr 21 2025 – Gazette records tenure through Apr 16 2030.
- Aug 13 2026 – Mishra attempts to cancel enrolment of the 2026 batch at NALSAR Hyderabad; later withdraws.
- Aug 21 2026 – Writ petition filed.
- Sep 2 2026 – Court directs Attorney General and Solicitor General to participate in BCI decisions.
- Sep 23 2026 – Supreme Court issues notice, seeks BCI’s response within two weeks.
Official Statements & Responses
Chief Justice Kant questioned the premise of BCI as an “expert body,” noting its statutory role begins only after a lawyer obtains a licence. He suggested the Council may prescribe curriculum length but “cannot control” law schools.
BCI counsel, led by Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, likened BCI’s powers to those of the former Medical Council of India, arguing that statutes permit the Council to promote legal education and set standards.
Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta warned of large donations to the PEARL FIRST Trust in exchange for approvals to expand law colleges and pledged documentary evidence.
The Attorney General and Solicitor General have been instructed to be actively involved in any BCI policy decision pending resolution of the petitions.
Criticism & Opposition
Advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that the BCI’s dual role violates the principle that a regulator cannot run institutions it oversees, citing the statutory requirement that the BCI nominate a majority of executive-council members.
Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta alleged “donations in crores” linked to approvals for new law colleges, suggesting financial impropriety.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Tenure Discrepancy: Rule 12(2) limits the chairman’s term to two years, yet the April 21 2025 Gazette extends it to April 16 2030. The petition treats the extension as prima facie inconsistent, while the BCI says a resolution removed lifetime trusteeship.
- Scope of Section 7(1)(h): The Court has not yet clarified whether “promote legal education” includes direct control over institutions, leading to divergent interpretations.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court has ordered the BCI and the Union government to file a response within two weeks. The bench indicated it may refer the matter to a larger bench if the interpretation of Section 7(1)(h) proves complex. Petitioners have proposed an independent committee, headed by a former Supreme Court judge, to audit the PEARL FIRST Trust’s finances and governance. The outcome will shape the regulatory framework for legal education across India.