Bar Council of India imposes three-year moratorium on new law colleges nationwide
During the moratorium period, no new centre will be established or granted approval anywhere in India, the regulatory body said. It further said no existing centre will introduce any new section, course, or batch without the prior written and express approval of the BCI.
The council said it took this step 'to arrest the decline in quality across segments of legal education, evidenced by the unchecked mushrooming of sub-standard institutions, routine issuance of no objection certificates (NOCs) by State governments and affiliations by universities without proper inspection'.
It additionally said that this step was aimed at preventing 'the commercialisation of legal education, widespread academic malpractice, and persistent shortages of qualified faculty'.
'Focus on quality enhancement'
With around 2000 centres of legal education already operating, the BCI said the country's institutional capacity is adequate, and 'the focus must shift to consolidation, quality enhancement, and systemic strengthening in the interest of the public and in furtherance of constitutional commitments'.
During the moratorium, existing centres will be subject to intensified inspections and compliance audits, the BCI said. 'The BCI may order closure or derecognition where institutions fail to maintain prescribed standards and will discourage issuance of fresh NOCs or affiliations for new institutions or courses,' it added.
This is not the first time that the BCI has issued such a moratorium. In August 2019, the BCI imposed a moratorium on opening new law colleges for a period of three years. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in December 2020, struck down the moratorium.
'The present regulation [Rules of Legal Education, moratorium (three-year moratorium)] answers the court's guidance by enacting the measures through formal rules and reinforces the council's long-standing commitment to quality,' the BCI said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Time of India
Punjab cabinet gives nod to denotify land pooling policy
CHANDIGARH : The Punjab Cabinet on Thursday gave approval to denotify the land pooling policy, which the AAP government withdrew a few days ago. The decision in this regard was taken in the meeting of the council of ministers, chaired by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann here. The Cabinet decided to withdraw notification of the department of housing and urban development, Punjab pertaining to Land Pooling Policy 2025 issued on June 4 along with subsequent amendments, said an official spokesperson of the chief minister's office. Following the withdrawal of the policy by the Bhagwant Mann dispensation, farmers organisations and opposition parties were pressing the state government to issue the notification for the withdrawal of the policy. In the face of mounting pressure from farmer bodies and opposition parties, the Punjab government on August 11 withdrew its land pooling policy, which it had once termed "farmer-friendly". Following the rollback of the policy which they had described as the land "grabbing" scheme, the opposition parties and farmer organisations had called it a victory of the people of Punjab and had claimed that they "forced" the Bhagwant Mann government to withdraw it. The AAP government's move of withdrawal of the policy came days after the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered an interim stay on the implementation of the land pooling policy for four weeks. The court on August 7 had held that Punjab's land pooling policy appears to have been notified in haste and concerns including social impact assessment and environment impact assessment should have been addressed before its notification. The Punjab Cabinet had approved this land pooling policy in June and had then asserted that not a single yard will be forcibly acquired from land owners. The state government had planned to acquire around 65,000 acres of land at many places including around 45,000 acres only in Ludhiana for developing residential and industrial zones. Under the policy, an owner will be given a 1,000 square yard of residential plot and a 200 square yard of commercial plot in fully developed land in lieu of one acre of land, the state government had said. Meanwhile, in another decision, the Cabinet Thursday approved an amendment to the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and the withdrawal of stamp duty and registration fee exemptions for certain classes of cooperative societies. Currently, the Act provides exemptions from compulsory registration, originally intended to facilitate the development of cooperative institutions. However, this provision enabled property transactions, particularly in urban housing societies, to take place without formal registration or the payment of stamp duty and registration fees, said the spokesperson. This situation has encouraged unregistered possession, benami transactions, and other legally risky arrangements. Therefore, an amendment to Section 37 of the Act has been made by adding Clauses 2 and 3. These clauses stipulate that the State Government may, through a notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the exemption under sub-section (1), or any part thereof, shall not apply to certain classes of cooperative societies or specified categories of instruments. The Cabinet also approved the creation of the post of 'Panchayat Development Secretary' by merging the cadres of Panchayat Secretaries and Gram Sevaks (Village Development Officers). Subsequently, a state cadre will be constituted for these posts to accelerate rural development across Punjab. The Cabinet granted ex-post facto approval for the formation of a group of ministers (GoM) to ensure the smooth procurement of Kharif and Rabi crops during the procurement seasons. This GoM is chaired by the Agriculture Minister and includes the ministers for food & civil supplies, transport, and water resources as members. The Cabinet also granted ex-post facto approval for the formation of a Cabinet Sub-Committee which will review and consider the recommendations made by the committee of officers regarding Parts II and III of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission Report.
The Print
21 hours ago
- The Print
When SC stepped in, summoned EVMs & reversed outcome of a panchayat poll in Haryana's Panipat
Kumar had moved the top court against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which reversed an order by an Election Tribunal, thereby declaring the panchayat election in favour of Singh. In its order delivered on 11 August, the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N. Kotiswar Singh declared appellant Mohit Kumar as the duly elected sarpanch of Buana Lakhu village gram panchayat, setting aside the initial outcome in favour of Kuldeep Singh. Gurugram: Ruling in favour of the 'first runner-up' who challenged the initial declared outcome of a 2022 panchayat election in Haryana's Panipat district, the Supreme Court earlier this week reversed that initial outcome, paving the way for the 'first runner-up' to be declared duly elected sarpanch. In a rare intervention of this kind, the top court ordered a recount of votes from Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) on its premises, after it held that there was a 'mistake' in an earlier recount of votes held on polling day. The case highlights lingering concerns over electoral integrity at the grassroots level. It also marked the first recorded instance when the country's top court asked for EVMs to be brought to its premises and oversaw a recount through one of its senior judicial officers. Newly elected sarpanch of Buana Lakhu panchayat, Mohit Kumar, told The Print Thursday he was not sure whether the presiding officer of booth 69, Braj Lal, committed an error or whether it was a deliberate act to tilt the outcome in favour of Kuldeep Singh. 'It is for the authorities to take a call. But what the authorities told me and the court is that it was an unintentional mistake,' he said. Asked what exactly was this 'mistake', Kumar said his serial number was 5, while Singh's was 6. But presiding officer Braj Lal placed him at 6 and Kuldeep at 5, thereby interchanging the votes received by each. Panipat District Collector Virender Dahiya told ThePrint that he would act against officials responsible for the 'mistake' as per the directions of the State Election Commission. Also Read: Punjab villages 'auction off' sarpanch posts days before Panchayat polls, Rs 2cr bid highest so far The controversy Panchayat polls were held in Haryana in three phases, with the last two in November 2022. In Buana Lakhu village in Panipat's Israna tehsil, seven candidates were in the fray for the post of sarpanch, with voting held across six booths and counting of votes the same day. The initial result declared Kuldeep Singh as the 'winner' with 1,117 votes out of 3,767 polled, and Mohit Kumar the 'first runner-up' with 804 votes—a margin of 313. Later that same evening, Kumar's supporters allegedly gathered at booth 69, where officials said they created a ruckus while protesting the initial outcome of the election. Authorities called the police and the election staff, along with Kumar and his supporters, were transported to the control room in a bus with the EVMs and other poll records. As the result of a recount conducted that same evening, a video of which was recorded purportedly by the returning officer (RO), Kumar was declared the winner of the election. Singh challenged this in the Punjab and Haryana HC via a writ petition, which on 5 March 2024 set aside the recount ordered by the Election Tribunal, restoring Singh as sarpanch. It held that once the RO declared the initial result in favour of Singh, issuing Forms 19 and 21-B (certificates of election) under Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994, the RO became functus officio (having discharged one's duty) and hence lacked jurisdiction to alter or 'correct' the outcome based on an alleged clerical error in the tally of votes at booth 69. Emphasising that no provision in the 1994 Rules allows revisions once results are declared, the high court held the subsequent re-drafting of forms illegal and unsustainable. Accessed by ThePrint, the high court's 5 March 2024 judgment reveals that Israna block development officer (BDO) and panchayat officer Poonam Chanda in her affidavit before the court submitted that polling was held at six booths (booths 65 to 70), and that the presiding officer of booth 65 also doubled as RO. It adds that returning officers of booths 66-70 were to submit their results to the presiding officer of booth 65 for final declaration. 'The Presiding Officer-cum-Returning Officer appointed at booth No. 65 compiled the votes of the candidates and declared the result and the certificates were issued to the Kuldeep Singh. Thereafter, in the videography done earlier, it came to notice that series of the names and votes of the candidates are prepared wrongly by the Presiding Officer appointed at Booth No. 69. Being clerical mistake conducted at booth No. 69, the result sheet was re-prepared and on the basis of the same the respondent No. 5 (Mohit Kumar) was declared as winning/successful candidate for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Buana Lakhu. 'Hence, there is no as such action has been taken which may be termed as biased, arbitrary, illegal or un-fair. Only clerical mistake conducted at booth No. 69 was removed. It is settled principle (typed as principal) of law that any clerical mistake can be rectified at any stage,' the judgment adds. Relying on precedent by way of a 2001 Supreme Court order (Malkit Kaur vs Jatinder Kaur), the high court held that the sole remedy available to Kumar was an election petition under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Harsh Bunger also granted Kumar the liberty to file an election petition in which he alleged serious discrepancies, particularly at booth 69, where he alleged votes were either miscounted or manipulated. The additional civil judge (senior division), Panipat, whose court also serves as Election Tribunal, after examining evidence, ordered a recount of the EVM at booth 69 on 22 April 2025. It directed the deputy commissioner-cum-district election officer (DEO) of Panipat to conduct the exercise on 7 May 2025. However, Singh challenged this order in the high court and a single judge-bench set aside the Election Tribunal's order on 1 July 2025. In her detailed 36-page judgment, high court judge Justice Nidhi Gupta held the Election Tribunal's order untenable on multiple grounds, noting that since a recount was already held on election day, a second recount was unnecessary and violative of electoral finality. Further, the high court in its order said the Election Tribunal's order breached statutory mandates under the 1994 Rules, as no specific provision was cited for ordering a second recount after evidence closure. It also discarded Kumar's reliance on the video recorded using a mobile phone as the basis for discrepancies, pointing out that election rules prohibit mobile phones and videography in booths to preserve ballot secrecy. Kumar, in turn, moved a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was heard as a civil appeal. Also Read: Unable to take oath & facing threats, Dalit woman president of a TN panchayat & her fight for justice SC's intervention: EVMs brought to apex court The bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N. Kotiswar Singh took note of the 'peculiar facts and circumstances' in the case. In an interim order on 31 July 2025, it directed Panipat deputy commissioner to produce all EVMs before a nominated registrar of the Supreme Court by 10 am on 6 August 2025. While the Election Tribunal ordered recounting in just one booth, the bench expanded the scope and ordered a recount of votes from all booths, not just where a dispute was raised. 'The recounting shall be duly video-graphed … and the result shall be signed by the parties' representatives,' the order said, emphasising it was 'without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties'. Kaveri, officer on special duty (registrar), oversaw the recount with logistical support from the top court's secretary general. The detailed report, submitted on 6 August 2025, included booth-wise tallies and a consolidated result: Mohit Kumar with 1,051 and Kuldeep Singh with 1,000 votes of a total 3,767. The recount, therefore, put Kumar ahead of Singh by a margin of 51 votes. Final order: Winner declared, but with caveats In its final judgment on 11 August 2025, the bench set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 1 July 2025 order and accepted the OSD's report as 'final and conclusive' on the vote count. 'There being prima facie no reason to doubt the report … especially when the entire recounting has been duly videographed and its result is signed by the representatives of the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant deserves to be declared as the elected sarpanch,' its order read. The apex court directed the Panipat deputy commissioner to issue a notification within two days declaring Kumar the winner, allowing him to assume office immediately. However, taking a balanced approach, it permitted the parties to pursue any unresolved issues before the Election Tribunal, which must now treat the Supreme Court's recount as binding. Kuldeep Singh's counsel, senior advocate Gagan Gupta, argued that other aspects of the petition, including procedural lapses, remained unadjudicated. 'Evidence is complete, and the case is ripe for final arguments,' he submitted. The Supreme Court bench acknowledged his submission and directed the Election Tribunal to hear final arguments and deliver a judgment, but without questioning the recount. (Edited by Amrtansh Arora) Also Read: Central govt questions West Bengal over 'misuse' of mid-day meal funds for panchayat polls, seeks report
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Bar Council of India imposes three-year moratorium on new law colleges nationwide
In a sweeping regulatory move to curb the proliferation of sub-standard law colleges across India, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has on Wednesday (August 13, 2025) announced a three-year nationwide moratorium on the establishment of new centres of legal education. During the moratorium period, no new centre will be established or granted approval anywhere in India, the regulatory body said. It further said no existing centre will introduce any new section, course, or batch without the prior written and express approval of the BCI. The council said it took this step 'to arrest the decline in quality across segments of legal education, evidenced by the unchecked mushrooming of sub-standard institutions, routine issuance of no objection certificates (NOCs) by State governments and affiliations by universities without proper inspection'. It additionally said that this step was aimed at preventing 'the commercialisation of legal education, widespread academic malpractice, and persistent shortages of qualified faculty'. 'Focus on quality enhancement' With around 2000 centres of legal education already operating, the BCI said the country's institutional capacity is adequate, and 'the focus must shift to consolidation, quality enhancement, and systemic strengthening in the interest of the public and in furtherance of constitutional commitments'. During the moratorium, existing centres will be subject to intensified inspections and compliance audits, the BCI said. 'The BCI may order closure or derecognition where institutions fail to maintain prescribed standards and will discourage issuance of fresh NOCs or affiliations for new institutions or courses,' it added. This is not the first time that the BCI has issued such a moratorium. In August 2019, the BCI imposed a moratorium on opening new law colleges for a period of three years. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in December 2020, struck down the moratorium. 'The present regulation [Rules of Legal Education, moratorium (three-year moratorium)] answers the court's guidance by enacting the measures through formal rules and reinforces the council's long-standing commitment to quality,' the BCI said.
