The recent decision of the Bombay High Court to refuse a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) circular mandating criminal background checks, biometric attendance, and CCTV surveillance in law colleges has sparked widespread debate. The ruling, delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre, has raised critical questions about privacy, fairness, and jurisdiction in legal education.

Background of the BCI Circular

On September 24, 2024, the BCI issued a circular directing law colleges to conduct criminal background checks on students before issuing their final marksheets and degrees. The directive also required students to submit declarations confirming that they were not engaged in other academic programs or employment without prior permission. Additionally, law institutions were instructed to install biometric attendance systems and CCTV cameras in classrooms.

The circular’s stated objective was to uphold the integrity of the legal profession by ensuring that individuals with criminal records did not misuse their legal education. However, the directive has been met with resistance, with critics arguing that it oversteps the BCI’s regulatory authority and infringes upon fundamental rights.

PIL Filed Against the Circular

Advocate Ashok Yende, a legal educationist with over 40 years of experience, challenged the legality of the BCI circular in a PIL. His petition raised concerns over:

1. Jurisdictional Overreach: Yende argued that the BCI’s mandate under the Advocates Act, 1961, extends only to the regulation of the legal profession and not to academic governance, which falls under the purview of universities and education boards.
2. Violation of Right to Equality (Article 14): The circular selectively applies to law students while excluding those in other disciplines, making it discriminatory.
3. Infringement on Right to Privacy (Article 21): Mandating the disclosure of criminal records, including cases resulting in acquittals, was argued to be an undue invasion of privacy.
4. Contradiction with Reformative Justice: The requirement for a “clean criminal record” was claimed to undermine the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration, which are fundamental to India’s criminal justice system.
5. Potential for Harassment: Students falsely implicated in cases could face undue hardship in completing their education.

Bombay High Court’s Ruling

The Bombay High Court refused to entertain the PIL, noting that if it were dismissed outright, it could foreclose the rights of genuinely aggrieved students to challenge the circular in the future. However, the Court made an important prima facie observation:

• The circular did not prevent students with criminal cases from pursuing legal education.
• There was “nothing wrong” with the directive, implying that background checks were not unconstitutional.

Following the Court’s remarks, the PIL was withdrawn, but the controversy surrounding the circular continues.

Implications of the Decision

1. Balancing Regulation and Privacy Rights

The BCI’s decision to implement criminal background checks raises important privacy concerns. The Supreme Court, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The mandatory disclosure of personal legal history, particularly acquittals, could be seen as an excessive intrusion into students’ private lives.

2. Legality of Jurisdictional Overreach

Under the Advocates Act, 1961, the BCI is responsible for regulating legal practice, not higher education. Critics argue that the circular encroaches upon the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) and law universities’ jurisdiction over academic administration. The question of whether BCI can impose such conditions on students before graduation remains open for judicial review.

3. Discriminatory Nature of the Circular

A significant contention is that only law students are subjected to these checks, while students from other disciplines remain unaffected. This discrepancy could be challenged under Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. If background checks are deemed necessary, a uniform policy across all educational fields might be required to ensure fairness.

4. Reformative Justice vs. Exclusionary Practices

The principle of reformative justice suggests that individuals who have committed offenses should have opportunities for rehabilitation. The BCI’s stance contradicts this principle by potentially excluding students based on past criminal records, regardless of whether they were convicted, acquitted, or falsely implicated.

5. Impact on Future Lawyers

While the BCI aims to maintain the integrity of the legal profession, its circular may discourage individuals with minor past infractions or wrongful accusations from pursuing law. This could create an exclusionary system that prevents diversity within the legal field.

Supreme Court Review Pending

The Supreme Court has sought the BCI’s response to petitions challenging the same circular, and a final ruling at the national level is awaited. The Bombay High Court’s decision does not set a binding precedent, meaning the Supreme Court’s judgment could provide clearer guidelines on the issue.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s refusal to entertain the PIL against the BCI’s circular highlights an ongoing legal and ethical debate. While the circular intends to uphold professional integrity, it raises critical concerns about privacy, discrimination, and jurisdictional overreach. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will play a decisive role in shaping the future of legal education governance in India. Until then, law students and institutions remain in a state of uncertainty regarding the implementation and long-term implications of the BCI’s directive.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-7I