New Delhi, August 23, 2025 – The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to a petition challenging its recent decision to impose a three-year moratorium on the establishment of new law colleges across the country. The petition, filed by advocate Jatin Sharma in the case Jatin Sharma v. Bar Council of India & Ors., has raised significant constitutional and policy concerns, arguing that the blanket ban is arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, which issued notice to the BCI and sought its reply on the legality and proportionality of the moratorium.
Background: BCI’s Moratorium on New Law Colleges
On August 13, 2025, the Bar Council of India announced a three-year freeze on the setting up of new Centres of Legal Education under the Rules of Legal Education, 2025.
According to the BCI, the decision was necessary to curb the unchecked mushrooming of substandard institutions and to preserve the integrity of legal education in India.
The press release further clarified that:
- No new sections, courses, or batches will be allowed by existing colleges during the moratorium unless specifically approved by the BCI.
- Pending applications that had not received final approval before the commencement date will still be processed in accordance with law.
- Any proposals considered during this period would undergo strict scrutiny and compliance reviews.
The BCI defended the move as a preventive step against commercialization and dilution of standards in legal education.
The Petition: Violation of Fundamental Rights
Advocate Jatin Sharma, through advocate Vairawan AS, has challenged the validity of this moratorium, claiming it violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Key arguments raised include:
- Arbitrariness & Disproportionality
- A blanket ban penalizes compliant and high-quality institutions along with substandard ones.
- The measure lacks a rational nexus to its stated objective of improving quality.
- Violation of Right to Equality (Article 14)
- The rule treats genuine proposals and substandard colleges alike, which is arbitrary.
- Region-specific needs of underserved areas are ignored.
- Violation of Right to Occupation (Article 19(1)(g))
- Private individuals and trusts wishing to establish law colleges are prevented from exercising their constitutional right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation.
- Violation of Right to Education & Access to Justice (Article 21)
- Deserving students, especially from tribal, rural, and aspirational districts, are denied opportunities to pursue legal education.
- This leads to regional imbalance and perpetuates inequality.
Alternatives Suggested by the Petitioner
The plea emphasized that instead of a sweeping moratorium, the BCI should adopt targeted and transparent regulatory mechanisms. Some of the proposed alternatives include:
- Periodic inspections and compliance audits to ensure quality standards.
- Intake caps, fines, and derecognition as proportionate sanctions against errant institutions.
- Stricter enforcement of attendance rules and prevention of unfair practices in examinations.
- Tight regulation of LL.M. and Ph.D. degrees to curb commercialization.
- Reconstitution of Legal Education Committees with involvement of sitting/retired judges, senior advocates, and academicians.
- Encouragement of new law colleges in underserved regions to reduce disparities in access to legal education.
Constitutional & Legal Dimensions
The challenge to the moratorium hinges on the balance between regulation and fundamental rights.
- Section 7(1)(h) & Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 empower the BCI to prescribe standards of legal education and to recognize law colleges.
- However, the petitioner argues that these provisions should be exercised to *inspect, supervise, and discipline non-compliant colleges, rather than imposing a *blanket freeze.
- Courts have previously emphasized that restrictions on fundamental rights must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and proportionate. The moratorium, according to the petitioner, fails this test.
Larger Debate: Quality vs. Access in Legal Education
This case reflects a larger tension in Indian higher education policy – how to maintain quality while ensuring access.
- In support of BCI’s moratorium:
- India has witnessed a surge in private law colleges, many of which face criticism for poor infrastructure, lack of qualified faculty, and declining academic rigor.
- A temporary freeze could allow regulators to focus on strengthening existing institutions.
- In support of the petitioner:
- A blanket ban hurts meritorious students and compliant colleges, especially in regions where there are few opportunities for legal education.
- Innovation, competition, and diversity in curriculum may suffer due to an overly restrictive approach.
- Blanket measures could also encourage monopolistic tendencies among existing institutions, raising costs for students.
Implications for Students and Institutions
The outcome of this litigation will directly impact:
- Students – Particularly those from aspirational districts and rural areas, who may face limited access to legal education during the moratorium period.
- Institutions – Private trusts, universities, and societies planning to establish new law colleges may face uncertainty until the Supreme Court settles the issue.
- Regulatory Landscape – The case could redefine the powers and responsibilities of the BCI under the Advocates Act.
What Lies Ahead?
The Supreme Court has not yet stayed the moratorium but has sought BCI’s response, indicating that it finds the issue worthy of consideration. The Court may examine:
- Whether the BCI has acted within its statutory mandate.
- Whether a blanket moratorium violates constitutional guarantees of equality and liberty.
- Whether targeted regulation could be a more proportionate alternative.
The case also raises an important question: Should regulation focus on preventing new entrants, or should it focus on stricter monitoring of existing institutions?
Conclusion
The petition against the BCI’s three-year moratorium on new law colleges has triggered a significant constitutional and policy debate on the future of legal education in India. While the BCI argues that the freeze is essential to prevent the proliferation of substandard colleges, the petitioner maintains that such a measure is overbroad, arbitrary, and violative of fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will not only determine the fate of proposed law colleges but will also shape the regulatory framework for higher education and access to justice in India. For now, the legal community awaits the BCI’s response and the Court’s next steps in what could become a landmark case for legal education reforms in the country.
Also Read
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Saying ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ Is Not Sedition Unless India Is Denounced
