The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought to examine the extent of the Bar Council of India’s (BCI’s) statutory powers over legal education, while also issuing notice on a petition raising questions about the functioning of BCI Trust PEARL-First, its financial transactions and the conduct of the council’s ongoing electoral process.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana indicated that it would examine whether the BCI’s mandate to promote legal education and prescribe standards under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961, extends to controlling the functioning of law institutions.
“You can lay down the curriculum, whether it should be four years, five years. You can promote legal education… But you can’t control it,” the CJI observed during the hearing.
The proceedings arose from a petition by Girish Mittal concerning the creation and functioning of law colleges in Goa and Andhra Pradesh following arrangements involving PEARL-First and the respective state governments. The plea has also questioned the manner in which BCI-related funds are transferred and utilised.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Mittal, submitted that the statutory framework governing the two institutions effectively places them under the control of the BCI. He pointed out that a majority of members of their executive councils were nominated by the BCI and argued that a regulator should not simultaneously run institutions that it regulates.
The Bench said it would first determine whether the BCI has the authority to “regulate and control” law universities. Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, appearing for a respondent, defended the BCI’s role, referring to the statutory framework governing professional education and the regulatory functions performed by bodies such as the erstwhile Medical Council of India.
The Court also raised the possibility of examining whether the issue required consideration by a larger Bench, particularly the scope of Section 7(1)(h), which empowers the BCI to promote legal education and lay down standards.
Concerns were also raised over PEARL-First. Bhushan referred to the role of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra in the creation of the trust and his position as a lifetime trustee. Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta alleged that substantial donations were being received by the trust in connection with approvals granted to law colleges.
The case comes against the backdrop of separate concerns over the BCI’s reconstitution and electoral process. In a reply affidavit, sitting BCI member N Manoj Kumar has sought Mishra’s removal from the council’s functioning and the electoral process until the BCI is reconstituted.
Kumar alleged that Mishra was influencing the constitution and elections of State Bar Councils, whose elected representatives would subsequently form the electoral body for choosing BCI office-bearers. He sought the complete separation of incumbent BCI office-bearers and officials from the electoral process. He proposed that the BCI’s day-to-day administration during the period be entrusted to an ad hoc committee headed by the Attorney General or Solicitor General.
The affidavit also alleged that despite the Attorney General and Solicitor General being ex-officio BCI members, notices and agendas of council meetings were not circulated to them. Kumar sought independent scrutiny of PEARL-First, its financial dealings with the BCI, appointments in the council and associated institutions, and the inspection and approval of legal education centres.
The Supreme Court had on September 2 directed the Attorney General and Solicitor General to actively participate in every BCI decision amid petitions challenging Mishra’s continuation as chairman.
The Court on Wednesday issued notice on Mittal’s petition, with notice accepted by the BCI’s standing counsel.