The Allahabad High Court has issued a stern admonition to the Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding its delays in processing applications from law colleges seeking approval to introduce 5-year law courses. This decision came in the context of the case Dr. Hari Shanker Mishra Law College v. Bar Council of India and 3 Others, presided over by Justice Abdesh Kumar Chaudhary.
Judicial Concern Over Procedural Delays
Justice Chaudhary emphasized that while the BCI holds the authority to oversee and enhance legal education standards, it should not misuse this power to inadvertently hinder the expansion of institutions from offering 3-year to 5-year law courses due to procedural delays. He stated, “Forcing a functional college to waste an entire academic year for a multi-year course extension, simply because an inspection team could not schedule a visit due to whatever reasons, constitutes a manifest arbitrariness on the part of the regulatory council.” The court underlined BCI’s statutory duty to process such applications within a reasonable timeframe.
Case Background
The hearing was prompted by a petition from Dr. Hari Shanker Mishra Law College, which sought the court’s intervention for its application to commence a 5-year law course. Affiliated with Lucknow University, the college has been offering a 3-year LL.B. program since 2012. In 2021, the college received a no-objection certificate and later, in January 2023, affiliation from the university for the 5-year course. An application for BCI approval was filed in February 2023 to start the course in the academic year 2026-27.
BCI’s Defense and Court’s Response
Representatives for the college argued that despite having the necessary infrastructure, the BCI had not yet conducted the required inspection. The BCI countered by explaining that it was overwhelmed, with approximately 1,250 applications to process for similar approvals. It assured the court that the college’s application would be addressed within three months.
However, the court noted that the academic session 2026-27 had already begun in July, rendering immediate relief for the session impractical. The court criticized the delay as arbitrary, especially given that the college had already received inspection approval for the 3-year course. Justice Chaudhary remarked, “Since the petitioner’s institution presumably must have been verified by the BCI, albeit for the 3-year course, this court fails to understand why the regulatory council has taken its own sweet time in processing the application.”
More Read
Directive for Future Action
The court rejected the argument that the high volume of applications justified the delay, emphasizing that the college’s existing affiliation indicated that the BCI could not claim ignorance of the institution’s readiness. The court ordered the BCI to establish an inspection committee to evaluate the college’s application for the 5-year course, with a deadline to complete the process within three months.
Legal representatives in the case included Advocate Rajesh Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner, Advocate Shailesh Kumar Pathak for the BCI, and Advocate Savitra Vardhan Singh for Lucknow University.
[Read Judgment]
