Legal Education Rules Framed By BCI Not In Consonance With Advocates Act: Law College Tells Bombay High Court In Plea Opposing Inspection

The petition filed in 2019 by Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School challenged the notice issued by the BCI for inspection of the college. The petitioner objected to the notice and argued that BCI does not have the power to inspect the college.

The petitioner argued that the Legal Education Rules framed by the BCI itself are not in consonance with the Advocates Act. He argued that the BCI broadened the scope of its authority in the Rules and thus, the BCI could not have made rules on inspection when it was absent in the Advocates Act.

The petitioner's counsel argued that colleges and universities are distinct entities and that the BCI cannot inspect colleges. He submitted that the authority to conduct such inspections of the college lies with the university as the college is affiliated with it.

When the Court questioned what other body could inspect a college, the petitioner stated that a committee constituted by the UGC and the university has the authority to inspect the law college.

The Court then asked if a committee formed by the UGC would have expertise in legal education. To this, the petitioner stated that the BCI, being composed of lawyers, lacks the requisite expertise to carry out inspections of legal education institutions.

Opposing the plea, the BCI argued that it has a statutory duty to carry out the inspection of the law schools to ensure that standard of education in the institutions is maintained.

The Court had appointed Dr. Milind Sathe as the amicus to the case. During the hearing yesterday, the amicus elaborated on various powers available to the BCI.

He submitted that the BCI has a major role in maintaining legal education and that the fundamental powers of BCI with respect to legal education include ancillary powers such as inspection of law colleges.

The amicus referred to Section 7 of the Advocates Act, which deals with the function of the BCI. Specifically, he referred to Section 7(h) which provides that BCI's function is to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities and the State Bar Councils. Additionally, he referred to Section 7(i) which states that BCI's functions include recognizing universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities.

Further, reference was made to Section 49(d) of the Advocates Act which provides that the BCI may make rules for the standards of legal education to be observed by universities in India and the inspection of universities for that purpose.

The amicus also relied on the Legal Education Rules 2008 and submitted that the BCI can inspect law colleges as per the rules.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik heard the submissions and reserved the matter for orders.

Case title: Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors (WP/1501/2019)