The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI), demanding a response to a petition challenging its nationwide three-year moratorium on establishing new law colleges—an unprecedented curb on legal education expansion. The hearing will take place in about four weeks.
Background: What Triggered the Ban?
- On August 13, 2025, the BCI introduced the “Rules of Legal Education, Moratorium (Three-Year Moratorium), 2025”. The regulation forbids the opening of any new Centres of Legal Education (CLEs) for three years. Existing colleges and proposed institutions must obtain explicit BCI approval for introducing new courses, batches, or sections.
- The intent, according to BCI, is to address rampant issues such as the unchecked proliferation of substandard colleges, commercialization of legal education, academic malpractices, and severe faculty shortages.
What the Petitioner Argues
- Advocate Jatin Sharma, through petition Jatin Sharma v. BCI & Ors., argues that the blanket moratorium is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and infringes on fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
- Rather than a total ban, he urges targeted, region-specific reforms: periodic audits, strict inspections, and the inclusion of experienced judges, academicians, and senior lawyers in the Legal Education and Curriculum Committees.
Why It Matters
Also Read: Respect Teachers Like Deities: SC Says Nation Must Prove It Through Action
The policy is stirring strong debate among stakeholders:
| Issue | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Arbitrary Regulation? | Does BCI maintain the power to blacklist new colleges without data support? |
| Access Barriers | Will underserved or rural areas lose opportunities for legal education? |
| Quality vs Access | Should reform focus on closing poor institutions or building good ones? |
| Checks & Oversight | Are proposed alternatives (inspections, committee overhaul) more effective? |
Current Status
- The Supreme Court has formally sought the BCI’s reply and may issue directions based on the response.
- This judicial scrutiny highlights the tension between regulating quantity and safeguarding equitable access to education.