The Bar Council of India has the authority to inspect law colleges and the Rules of Legal Education-2008 are valid under the Advocates Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, C.J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of Rule 2(iv)(a), Rule 2(xii)(B) and the Proviso appended thereto, Rule 14, Rule 16(2), Rule 18(2), Rule 19(ii), Rule 19(iii) and Rule 26(a) of the Rules of Legal Education-2008 (Rules of 2008) on the ground that the same are void and ultra vires the power conferred under Section 49(1)(d) read with Section 7(1)(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Act of 1961 and therefore, same be struck down. In addition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned notices dated 28^th August 2018 and 19^th September 2018 issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI), inter alia; on the ground that the same is ex-facie arbitrary and illegal and is dehors Section 7(h) and (i) and Section 49(d) of the Act of 1961 and is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India

(I) FACTS:

3. The factual matrix, which is not in dispute, lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner, a law school, was established in the year 2006 by Smt. Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University (SNDT University) and imparts legal education. The petitioner received an e-mail on 28^th August 2018 from the BCI by which it was informed that in pursuance of the direction issued by the Chairman of BCI, a committee constituted by it would visit the institution/law school of the petitioner for the purpose of conducting inspection on 29^th 30^th and 31^st August 2018. The petitioner, by communication dated 29^th August 2018 informed the BCI that it has no authority to visit and conduct inspection of law colleges under the provisions of the Act of 1961, as the same only provides for the inspection of the Universities and not the Law colleges. Thereafter, BCI issued a show-cause notice dated 19^th September 2018 by which the petitioner was informed as to why the degree of the University, for the law courses, be not suspended and college who is refusing to get itself inspected be also suspended. Hence, this petition.

(II) SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER:

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a law school which is a separate and distinct entity from the SNDT. It is contended that the expression “College” and “University” are expressly defined under Section 12A(1)(b) and 12A(1)(h) read with Section 22(1) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Act of 1956) and College and University are different entities in law. It is contended that a degree is conferred by the University as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (Act of 2016) and not by the college. It is further contended that the SNDT University is controlled by the Act of 1956 which is a central governing body formed under the Act of Parliament for controlling the affairs of the Universities recognized by the Act of 1956. It is submitted that Section 7(1)(h) and (i) of the Act of 1956 confers the power on the BCI to visit and inspect the Universities and not the Colleges.

5. It is urged that the Rules of 2008 framed by the BCI are beyond the rule making power of the BCI under Section 7(1) (h) and (i) read with Section 49(1)(d) of the Act of 1961. It is contended that a subordinate legislation cannot supplant the substantive provisions of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court judgments in UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. S. SRINIVASAN, [(2012) 7 SCC 683] and PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD VS. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD. & OTHERS., (2015) 9 SCC 209

6. It is argued that the SNDT University, through its authorities i.e. the Board of Studies, a primary academic body of the University, Management Council, Academic Council etc. are the controlling authorities in relation to the law courses offered by its law school. It is pointed out that the BCI itself has suggested the amendment to the Act o