Update: 28 March 2025

In a case involving the State Bar Council denying admission to law school alumni because they attended an institution that had not been acknowledged by the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that, going forward, an establishment will face criminal charges if it recognizes students with the required approval. The Court further mandated that all procedures pertaining to registration renewal be finished by December 31 of the prior year and that all correspondence with the Bar Council of India be finished by February 15 of the same year.

The present State Bar Council denied some law pupils’ requests to be enrolled as “Advocates” on the grounds that defendant number 5-Central India Law Institute, Jabalpur, the college from which they graduated, failed to renew its approval with the BCI after 2008-2009.

“With the above instructions we hereby dispose of the demands by guiding the appropriate authority that if a university in the future without acknowledgment gives enrollment other than an educational intent, criminal charges shall be taken in opposition to such institutions as per law,” noted the division of the bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain.

At this point, we learned from the institution counsel that the institution does not finish the association renewing procedure till December 31st of the preceding year, which prevents colleges from applying to the Bar Council of India by that date. Therefore, when organizations submit applications to the College for an upsurge of affiliation, we mandate that all procedures be finished by December 31 of the year prior and that all correspondence with the Bar Council of India be finished by February 15 of the same year.

Regarding the current case, the court observed that the applicants’ college did not submit the required amount to the Bar Council of India, and as a result, the identification was not extended. However, the court ruled that the pupils were not at blame and that the Bar Council of India ought to have taken strong action against these establishments. The plea claimed that the responding officials failed to disclose the institution’s failure to revoke permission when admitting the petitioners and other comparable students, so endangering their future as well as that of numerous other learners.

In order to remedy the issue with the institution’s approved continuation and extend it by the required date, the petitioner requested that the responding body no. 2 Bar Council of India be directed to reclaim the cost of renewal from the institution. Additionally, the State Bar Council, Respondent No. 3, was ordered to enroll the appellants as proponents with all associated benefits. With retroactive effect, the Court’s most recent ruling, issued March 7, condemned the Bar Council of India’s practice of still recognizing some universities after 20 years. The Bar Council of India was therefore instructed to “make its house in order” in order to prevent institutions from interfering with students’ academic pursuits.