The Bar Council of India must process applications from existing law colleges for additional intake based on merit, not a blanket moratorium, ensuring compliance with infrastructural standards.

ORDER :

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. In all these writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners are Centers for Legal EducationIn short, hereinafter referred as “CLE” , commonly known as Law Colleges.

2.1. As per the procedure in vogue, in order to establish a CLE by a private Management, first, they must have applied to the State Government and to the concerned Affiliating University to get No Objection Certificate from the State Government and the affiliation and consent of affiliation from the Affiliating University. After getting these certifications, they have to make further application, as a final process, to the Bar Council of India, In short, hereinafter referred as “BCI”.

2.2. The BCI will independently process the application, to be submitted by the Educational Agency for starting the CLE and, on the basis of the input send by the University through affiliation or consent for affiliation, as well as the No Objection Certificate by the State Government and after having conducted an inspection by the team of experts to be sent by the BCI, the approval process would be completed and wherever there are deserved cases, such approval would be granted by the BCI. In order to complete this process, separate fee would be collected by the BCI.

2.3. Almost the same procedure is adopted in respect of the existing CLEs, seeking such approval for additional Centres or additional Sections or additional intake in both the three year Law Degree Course or LL.B. Course or five year integrated Law Degree Course.

3.1. Here, as far as the present cases are concerned, all the present petitioners are existing Law Colleges, that is CLEs. They want to get approval for additional intake in the existing Institutions from the Academic Year 2025-26, for which, they have already applied to the Affiliating University, that is the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, as well as the State Government and from the University as well as the State Government, they received the consent of affiliation or affiliation as well as the No Objection Certificate for starting of the additional intake or additional classes in the existing Institutions.

3.2. After getting these affiliations and No Objection Certificates from the respective Authorities, they applied to the BCI by making payment of Rs.6,50,000/- as processing fee to the BCI. The said applications, insofar as these CLEs are concerned, had been kept pending without processing the same.

3.3. At one point of time, except two Institutions, in respect of the remaining Institutions/writ petitioners, the fee paid by the Institutions to the BCI have been returned. In respect of the said two Institutions alone, the fee had not been returned. Therefore, the fee-returning order has been questioned in seven writ petitions and in respect of the two writ petitions, as the fee had not been returned, they seek a writ of mandamus to process those applications.

3.4. That is how these batch of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court, seeking relief as sought in the respective writ petitions.

4. It is the argument advanced by Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners that, apart from these nine Institutions, already two Institutions, by name, Sir Issac Newton Law College, Nagapattinam and Saraswathi Law College, Tindivanam, both at Tamil Nadu, have also applied for additional intake, as these two Institutions also are existing CLEs. Insofar as these applications are concerned, these applications have been processed and necessary approval has been conveyed by the BCI through their order dated 14.10.2025, whereas, seven out of the nine Institutions'/writ petitioners' applications have been returned wi