JUDGMENT :

The validity of Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of Legal Education- 2008 as framed by the Bar Council of India has been challenged in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as being ultra vires the rule making power of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

3. The petitioner no.1-Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (for short, ‘the University’) is a State University governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The petitioner no.2-Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University’s Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law (for short, ‘the Law College’) is a college that is being conducted by the University. The Law College has been conferred the status of “Permanent Approved College” by the Bar Council of India in 1995 as per the law prevailing then. This fact was communicated to the Law College by the Bar Council of India on 30.11.1995. According to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa there were two categories of law colleges in the State of Maharashtra. Some law colleges were permanently approved while others were temporarily approved. The name of the Law College herein was included in the list of permanently approved law colleges. The Bar Council of India framed the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2008). These rules came into force from 14.09.2008. The said Rules were to replace all previous rules, directives, notifications and resolutions relating to matters covered under the said Rules. As per Rule 2(xxiv), the expression “regular approval” means approval for a period not exceeding five years including permanent approval granted earlier to any Centre of Legal Education before the Rules of 2008 came into force. These rules prevented Centres of Legal Education from imparting education without obtaining approval of the Bar Council of India. The manner in which regular approval was to be granted and inspection of Centres of Legal Education was to be undertaken was also prescribed.

4. According to the Bar Council of India, it was necessary for the Law College to have got itself approved in the manner prescribed by the Rules of 2008. The list of law colleges having approval of affiliation from the Bar Council of India as on 01.01.2013 was published and the Law College was shown to have been approved up to the year 2010-11. The Directorate of Higher Education called upon the Principals of all the law colleges in the State to comply with the requirements prescribed by the Bar Council of India by 31.08.2016 to enable such approved law colleges to be included in the further academic process for the year 2016-17. The Principal of the Law College accordingly remitted the requisite fees to the Bar Council of India seeking approval for the period from 2016-17 and onwards. It also furnished the information required on 26.07.2016. It appears that the Bar Council of India demanded an amount of Rs.21,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Fifty Thousand) from the Law College to enable it to get a no objection in that regard. The parties entered into communication with each other in that regard. Since there was absence of affiliation with the Law College, the State Bar Council refused to enroll graduates who had completed their education from the Law College. Ultimately on 09.01.2019 the Bar Council of India called upon the Law College to deposit the entire amount as directed. In the present writ petition besides challenging the validity of Rule 2(xxiv) of the Rules of 2008, the petitioners have sought a declaration that the Law College was not required to seek fresh approval from the Bar Council of India since it was already granted permanent approval. In the alternate, it has been prayed that the Law College would be required to seek further approval only from the academic session 2014-15 and onwards.

5. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed b