'BCI Has No Business Interfering With Legal Education' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Allowing 2 Convicts To Attend Law School Virtually

While dismissing Bar Council of India's challenge to a Kerala High Court order which allowed 2 murder convicts to attend law classes virtually, the Supreme Court today orally observed that BCI has no business interfering with matters of legal education and should leave the same to jurists and legal academicians.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and dismissed the petition, leaving however the question of law open.

Briefly put, BCI had challenged a 2023 order of the Kerala High Court, which allowed 2 persons undergoing sentence for offense under Section 302 IPC (and others) to attend LL.B. classes through online mode from jail.

"Why BCI should challenge this kind of order?", asked Justice Kant at the outset of the hearing. In response, AoR Radhika Gautam (appearing for BCI) urged that the larger question pertained to the convict-students being allowed to attend classes virtually, which was contrary to UGC Regulations.

Pointing out that the High Court had taken a formative step, Justice Kant told the counsel that BCI should have supported the High Court decision, "instead of having a conservative and orthodox view". To this, Gautam responded by submitting that BCI was not seeking stay of the impugned order and the two students in question could be allowed to continue to attend virtually. However, the larger question be considered by the Court.

Considering, Justice Kant told the counsel that if a person who is in a position to attend classes through physical mode seeks to attend virtually, the court would perhaps agree with BCI. However, in the case at hand, the convicts had been admitted as law students and were permitted to attend classes online by the High Court. The judge questioned as to what would happen if the respondent-convicts were ultimately acquitted (in appeal).

"First of all, speaking for myself...and I will persuade my brother also...the BCI has no business to go into this legal education part...your task is to control this huge...your hands must be full to look after all these things...legal education should be left to the jurists, to the legal academicians...and please allow them to have some mercy on the legal education of this country," Justice Kant remarked.

Differing, Gautam drew the Court's attention to a Constitution Bench judgment and contended that the Court has held that BCI has power to "process the legal education process".

Ultimately, the petition was dismissed on account of a delay of 394 days as well as on merits, leaving the question of law open. "Besides the inordinate delay of 394 days, we are satisfied that the order passed by the High Court granting permission to join classes to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through online mode in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case does not warrant interference", the Court noted.

Case Title: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS., Diary No. 11532/2025