Updated: 21th march,2025

During its oral ruling today, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the Bar Council of India‘s challenge to a Kerala High Court order that permitted two murder convicts to take law classes virtually. The court stated that the BCI had no business meddling in legal education matters and that jurists and legal academicians should handle them instead. The matter was considered by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, who dismissed the petition but left the legal question unanswered.

In summary, the BCI had contested a 2023 Kerala High Court ruling that permitted two individuals serving sentences for offenses under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (among others) to take online LL.B. classes while incarcerated.

At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Kant questioned, “Why should BCI contest this type of order?” The main issue, according to BCI counsel, was that the convict-students were permitted to attend classes virtually, which was against University Grants Commission regulations.

BCI should have backed the High Court’s ruling “instead of having a conservative and orthodox view,” Justice Kant told the lawyer, pointing out that the court had made a formative step. The attorney’s response to this was that BCI was not requesting a stay of the contested order and that the two students in question might be permitted to continue attending online. The Court will, however, take the bigger question into account.

According to Justice Kant, the court might support BCI if someone who is able to attend classes in person wanted to do so remotely. The High Court, however, allowed the convicted individuals to take classes online because they were accepted as law students in the particular case. The judge asked what would happen if the respondent-convicts were found not guilty in the end (on appeal).

“First of all, speaking for myself…and I will persuade my brother also…the BCI has no business to go into this legal education part…your task is to control this huge…your hands must be full to look after all these things…legal education should be left to the jurists, to the legal academicians…and please allow them to have some mercy on the legal education of this country,” Justice Kant remarked.

On the contrary, BCI counsel argued that the Court had ruled that BCI has the authority to “process the legal education process” after bringing up a Constitution Bench ruling. The petition was ultimately denied on the grounds of merits and the 394-day delay, leaving the legal issue unresolved. “Besides the inordinate delay of 394 days, we are satisfied that the order passed by the High Court granting permission to join classes to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through online mode in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case does not warrant interference,” the judge stated.