Aarohi Girish Dhumale
On Monday, 24th March, 2025, the Bombay High Court reserved its judgment on a petition filed by a law school challenging an inspection notice issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI). This petition questioned the BCI’s authority citing inconsistency with the Advocates’ Act, 1961.
This case was heard by a Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik.
The petition was filed in 2019 by Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School. It challenged the inspection notice issued by the BCI, with the petitioner arguing that the BCI does not have the authority to inspect the college.
The petitioner contended that the Legal Education Rules formulated by the BCI are not in alignment with the Advocates Act. He argued that the BCI had expanded its authority through these rules, and as the Advocates Act did not mention inspection, the BCI was not empowered to create rules regarding it.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that colleges and universities are separate entities, and that the Bar Council of India (BCI) does not have the jurisdiction to inspect colleges. He argued that the power to carry out such inspections rests with the university, as the college is affiliated with it.
When the Court inquired about which other body could inspect a college, the petitioner responded that a committee formed by the UGC and the university holds the authority to inspect the law college.
The Court then inquired whether a committee formed by the UGC would possess the necessary expertise in legal education. In response, the petitioner argued that the BCI, being made up of lawyers, lacks the required expertise to conduct inspections of legal education institutions.
Opposing the petition, the BCI contended that it has a statutory responsibility to inspect law schools in order to ensure the maintenance of educational standards within these institutions. The Court had appointed Dr. Milind Sathe as the amicus curiae for the case. During yesterday’s hearing, the amicus provided a detailed explanation of the various powers vested in the BCI. He argued that the BCI plays a crucial role in overseeing legal education, and that its core powers regarding legal education include ancillary powers, such as the authority to inspect law colleges.
The amicus cited Section 7 of the Advocates Act, which defines the functions of the BCI. Specifically, he drew attention to Section 7(h), which requires the BCI to promote legal education and set standards for such education in collaboration with universities and State Bar Councils. He further referenced Section 7(i), which grants the BCI the authority to recognize universities whose law degrees qualify individuals for enrolment as advocates, including the power to visit and inspect these universities for this purpose.
Case Title: Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors
Case Number: (WP/1501/2019)
Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com