Can Bar Council of India run a law college? Prashant Bhushan's plea to Supreme Court

In a significant development that could reshape the landscape of legal education in India, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan has announced his intention to file a petition before the Supreme Court of India challenging the Bar Council of India's (BCI) authority to operate a law college. Bhushan made the declaration while appearing before the Court in an unrelated matter concerning the newly enacted Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025 (SHANTI Act) , but the implications of his planned plea are far-reaching for the legal profession.

During the hearing, Bhushan stated, "Bar Council cannot run a law college. In fact, we are filing a petition regarding that - that the Bar Council cannot run a law college. That they are regulating these law colleges and they are running a law college." The remark, though brief, underscores a fundamental conflict of interest at the heart of the regulatory framework governing legal education in India.

A Conflict of Interest at the Core

The BCI is the statutory body tasked with laying down standards of legal education, recognising law colleges, and ensuring quality in legal training. However, in recent years, the Council has also ventured into direct operation of an educational institution. The India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER) in Goa, established under the aegis of the BCI, is a law college that offers undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. This dual role — as both regulator and operator — has long been a subject of debate among legal academics and practitioners.

Bhushan's forthcoming petition is likely to argue that the BCI's regulatory function is inherently incompatible with its role as a competitor in the market for legal education. The principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause) is a foundational tenet of administrative law, and the BCI's position appears to violate it. By running a law college, the BCI is effectively setting standards that it must itself meet, while also being in a position to influence the accreditation and recognition of rival institutions.

The IIULER Controversy

IIULER was envisioned as a centre of excellence in legal studies, but its establishment under the BCI's banner has drawn criticism from the outset. Critics argue that the Council's involvement blurs the line between regulation and participation, creating an uneven playing field. For instance, if the BCI imposes rigorous infrastructure or faculty requirements on other colleges, it may be seen as benefiting its own institution by raising the bar for competitors. Conversely, if it is lenient on its own college, it could be accused of favouritism.

The BCI has defended its initiative by citing the need for a model institution that can set high standards and serve as a benchmark for other law colleges. However, legal experts contend that even the appearance of bias is damaging to the credibility of the regulatory system. The Supreme Court, in several earlier judgments, has emphasised the importance of maintaining a clear separation between regulatory bodies and the entities they oversee.

Legal Implications and Precedents

The question of whether a regulatory body can also operate an entity within its regulated sphere is not new to Indian jurisprudence. In the context of higher education, the Supreme Court has previously held that the University Grants Commission cannot simultaneously be a university. Similarly, in the case of Medical Council of India v. Dr. L. P. Agarwal , the Court observed that a regulator must avoid any conflict of interest that could compromise its impartiality.

Bhushan's petition is expected to draw on these analogies, arguing that the BCI's dual role violates the principle of natural justice and the broader constitutional scheme that separates powers. The petition may also cite the Bar Council of India Act, 1964 , which confers regulatory powers on the Council but does not explicitly authorise it to establish or run law colleges. If the Supreme Court accepts this argument, it could order the BCI to divest its interest in IIULER or restructure its governance model.

Impact on Legal Practice and Education

The outcome of the case could have profound implications for the legal profession. If the BCI is barred from running a law college, it would set a precedent that regulatory bodies across other professions — such as medical, engineering, or accounting — might also face similar scrutiny. The decision could trigger a wave of litigations challenging the operational activities of various regulatory councils.

Moreover, the case raises important questions about the quality of legal education. IIULER was intended to be a flagship institution, but its future is now uncertain. Students and faculty associated with the university may face disruptions if the Court orders its closure or transfer to another entity. The BCI, for its part, may argue that its involvement ensures that the institution adheres to the highest standards, but the legal challenge is unlikely to be resolved quickly.

A Broader Debate on Regulatory Independence

Bhushan's intervention comes at a time when the independence of regulatory bodies is under increased scrutiny. The SHANTI Act hearing, during which he made the statement, deals with liability for nuclear accidents, but the underlying theme of regulatory accountability is common to both issues. The Supreme Court has consistently stressed the need for regulators to be free from conflicts of interest, and this case will test that principle in the context of legal education.

The legal community will be watching closely as the petition is filed and the Court decides on its admissibility. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the matter, it could lead to a landmark judgment that redefines the boundaries of regulatory authority in India. For now, Bhushan's announcement has already ignited a fresh debate on the proper role of the Bar Council of India in the education sector.

Conclusion

Prashant Bhushan 's planned Supreme Court petition challenges the very foundation of the Bar Council of India's participation in legal education. By questioning whether the BCI can simultaneously act as a regulator and an operator, the case forces a re-examination of long-standing practices. The outcome will not only affect IIULER but also set a crucial precedent for the governance of professional bodies across the country. As the legal fraternity awaits the formal filing, the central question remains: can a regulator truly be impartial when it has skin in the game?