Legal education in India is again under judicial scrutiny. On 23 September 2026 a three‑judge Bench of the Supreme Court questioned how far the Bar Council of India (BCI) can control law colleges and shape education.
The issue arose in Girish Mittal v. Bar Council of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1115/2026, Which challenges the functioning of the BCI Trust “PEARL‑FIRST” (Trust for Promotion of Education (Legal and Professional) and Reforms in Law and Improvement of Research and Social Training) the transfer of BCI funds to that trust and the establishment of law colleges in Goa and Andhra Pradesh through arrangements involving the trust.
During the hearing a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana observed that the BCI may prescribe curriculum determine the duration of law courses (such as four or five years) and promote education under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961. However the Court doubted whether this statutory role extends to controlling or running law colleges themselves. CJI Kant remarked, “What do you know about education? There are experts “ emphasising that curriculum and standards should be shaped by those with expertise in legal education rather than by the professional regulator alone.
The Supreme Court issued notice. Sought responses from the BCI indicating that it would examine the scope of the Council’s powers over legal education and law colleges. The proceedings are ongoing; the Court has not yet delivered a decision.
This development comes at a time of change in Indian legal education. Five‑year integrated law Programmes have become a route into the profession while debates continue over curriculum design, practical training, internships, clinical legal education and the relationship between universities, regulators and professional bodies. The Court’s observations underscore an institutional question: how should academic expertise, university autonomy and professional regulation interact in shaping legal education?
For law students the outcome could have practical implications for how law courses are designed, accredited and regulated and for the balance, between professional requirements and educational quality.