The Supreme Court of India has raised serious questions about the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) authority to regulate academic aspects of law universities. It has directed the Union of India and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to file their views on whether the BCI has the right to interfere in matters like curriculum and recognition of LL.M. degrees.
“We would like to have the opinion of the Union of India and UGC. The Attorney General is requested to assist. Both must present their clear stand,” the Court ordered.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declines to Quash FIRs Against TN Thowheed Jamath Members; Orders Joint Trial in Madurai
A bench led by Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh was hearing petitions that challenged the BCI’s now-revoked decision to abolish the one-year LL.M. course and not recognize foreign LL.M. degrees.
Why Is BCI Intervening in Academics, SC Asks
Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, representing BCI, informed the Court that a stakeholder meeting had taken place. It was decided there to form an Expert Committee led by a former Chief Justice of India.
However, Justice Kant strongly questioned BCI’s involvement in academics.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declines Fresh Petitions Against Waqf Amendment Act, Allows Intervention in Ongoing Case
“Why are you interfering in academic affairs? Shouldn’t academic experts handle this? Your role is to support and regulate the legal profession, not inspect law colleges,” he said.
Justice Kant also pointed out that BCI should instead focus on upgrading the skills of lawyers through training programs, and let universities manage academic courses.
When Tankha argued that BCI has been granted such power through rules, Justice Kant responded:
“These are your own rules, subordinate legislation. You’re acting like the only authority responsible for legal education in this country.”
He further emphasized that the judiciary, which depends on law schools for future judges, is also a key stakeholder in legal education.
LL.M. Is Not a Qualification for Practice, Say Petitioners
Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi, appearing for the Association of National Law Schools, stated that while a committee's recommendations are welcome, BCI must not assume control over matters that are already under UGC’s jurisdiction—like PhDs and diplomas.
Justice Kant remarked:
“LL.M. is unrelated to legal practice. BCI may offer broad guidelines, but implementing curriculum should be left to academic institutions.”
Tankha then tried to explain that BCI merely wanted one year of teaching experience from 1-year LL.M. graduates for their degrees to be valid. But the Court did not find this convincing.
“Does the Medical Council prescribe qualifications for MD or specialization? No. Then why should BCI do this?” asked Justice Kant.
Background of the Case
Two petitions triggered this case. One was filed by Tamanna Chandan Chachlani, a law student, in January 2021, and the other by the Consortium of National Law Universities in February 2021. The petitions challenged the BCI’s 2020 rules that sought to scrap the 1-year LL.M. programme.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: 'Sharia Court', 'Court of Kazi' Have No Legal Standing Their Orders Not Binding
The main argument is that under the Advocates Act, 1961, BCI can regulate only those legal qualifications that relate to the practice of law. Since LL.M. is not a requirement for practicing as a lawyer, the BCI has no say in its regulation.
BCI had previously told the Court that the 2020 rules would not be implemented in 2021. Later circulars required one year of teaching experience for 1-year LL.M. degrees to be recognized in India.
Tamanna Chachlani, represented by Advocate Rahul Shyam Bhandari, is affected because her foreign LL.M. degree is not considered valid in India without fulfilling this teaching requirement.
The case remains under consideration as the Court awaits responses from the Union and UGC.
Case Title: TAMANNA CHANDAN CHACHLANI VERSUS BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS., Writ Petition(C) No. 70/2021 (and connected case)
