Under Rule 16 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, a Law College in a multi-faculty building must have sufficient and adequate floor space specially and completely devoted to the Centre of Legal Education to qualify for affiliation.

LISA GILL, CJ.

This appeal has been filed for setting aside order dated 20.02.2026 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.32408 of 2025 whereby, impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by appellant has been set aside and writ petition allowed. Learned Single Judge further directed appellant University to reconsider grant of affiliation to writ petitioner/College while taking note of adequacy of space as discussed in the order.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that respondent No.1/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.32408 of 2025 for setting aside order dated 07.11.2025 whereby affiliation to petitioner College was not granted for the academic year 2025-2026. Affiliation was denied on the ground of non-compliance of Bar Council of India (B.C.I.) norms to the extent that there is no separate demarcated land or building for the Law College and that University procedure is not followed in staff recruitment. Furthermore, Principal is not having 15 years of teaching experience in Law College as per the B.C.I. Law Guidelines. Two faculty members have not submitted their Aadhar Cards to check their working status in the same college.

3. Learned Single Bench, on considering the facts and circumstances, concluded that Rule 16 (ii) of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (for short, “the Rules of 2008”) do not specifically contemplate a separate building and all that is required is that the Law College would have exclusive, sufficient floor space so as to effectively run a professional Law College, even in a multi faculty building and Rule 16 of Schedule III of the Rules of 2008 do not mandate 15 years of teaching experience to be appointed as Principal of Law College. Objection No.4 was found to be trivial in nature and the University is directed to re-examine the same in the light of explanation given by writ petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that Rules of 2008 are categoric and provide for specific provisions which need to be complied with before affiliation can be granted to a Law College. Appellants do not have any problem in re-examining the matter in terms of the said applicable Rules. However, findings of learned Single Judge to the extent that only sufficient and adequate floor space is required to effectively run professional law courses even in a multi faculty building is not correct. Even in the case of Multi Faculty Institutions, requisite area has to be exclusively dedicated for Centre of Legal Education. Reference has been made to Rule 16 of the Rules of 2008, which provide that adequate land and dedicated space has to be provided for running a Law College. Moreover, as per Objection No.3, Rule 16 (iv) of the Rules of 2008 requires that the Principal must be qualified as a Professor of Law as stipulated under U.G.C. and Bar Council of India Rules. The U.G.C. Regulations, 2018 and B.C.I. Guidelines prescribe minimum experience requirements for appointment as Professor of Law. The learned Single Bench erred in holding that 15 years of teaching experience is not required, without adverting to or examining the applicable U.G.C. Regulations and B.C.I. Guidelines. Further, Objection No.4 in respect to faculty members’ Aadhar Cards verification cannot be termed trivial in view of specific applicable rules. Adequate number of full time and visiting faculty members have to be recruited.

5. It is further stated th