Bombay High Court

PEOPLES EDUCATION SOC THR ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided: 24 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court upheld the BCI's refusal to grant provisional approval, holding that the college must first remedy the identified deficiencies before approval can be considered for the next academic year.

Summary

The petitioners sought a direction compelling the Bar Council of India (BCI) to grant provisional approval for Yashwant Law College, Pune, to commence a three‑year LL.B. programme for the 2026‑27 academic year. The BCI had declined the application, citing various deficiencies in the new college and stating that approval could not be given until those were remedied. The petitioners highlighted that the State of Maharashtra and Pune University had already granted permission for the college to start in the same academic year. The Court examined the BCI’s statutory role in ensuring standards for legal education and found no infirmity in its decision to withhold approval. Consequently, the Court ordered the petition dismissed, allowing the college to rectify the deficiencies and re‑apply for approval for the 2027‑28 academic year, and kept the petition open for such a future application.

Issues considered

Whether the Bar Council of India can lawfully refuse provisional approval for a new law college despite approvals from the State and the affiliating university.
Whether the writ petition seeking immediate approval for the 2026‑27 academic year is maintainable.

Subjects

Bar Council of India
law college approval
LL.B. programme
academic year
deficiencies
state permission
university affiliation
writ petition

Judgment

                                                                  902-WP 12690.2026.doc

             Kavita S.J.


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.12690 OF 2026

             People’s Education Society & Anr.,                 ...Petitioners

                     Versus

             State of Maharashtra & Ors.,                       ...Respondents
                                                ----------
             Mr. Prashant V. Malik for Petitioners.
             Smt. Vaishali S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 – State.
             Mr. Prasad L. Gajbhiye a/w Mr. Jayvrat Sakhare & Ms. Rutuja Joshi
             for Respondent No. 4 – BCI.
             Mr. Nikhil Chavan for Respondent No.5 – CET Cell.
             Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar, Chairman of Petitioner No.2 present.
                                                ----------

                                         CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
                                                 FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

                                         DATE       : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
             ORDER:


             1.              By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought direction to

             Respondent No.4 - Bar Council of India (“BCI”) to forthwith consider
KAVITA
SUSHIL
JADHAV
             and grant provisional approval to the Petitioner No.2 - Yashwant Law
Digitally
signed by
KAVITA
SUSHIL
JADHAV
Date:
2026.09.28
             College, Yerwada, Pune (hereinafter referred to as “the said
14:01:18
+0530




             College”), in respect of the Petitioners’ online application on the

             official portal of Respondent No.4 - BCI, dated 8th September 2026,

                                                  1/3
                                                  902-WP 12690.2026.doc

bearing Reference No.YLC/2026-27/006, seeking approval for

commencement of the 3 Year LL.B. Course at the said College for

Academic Year 2026-27. Further consequential relief has been

sought.


2.           Mr. Gajbhiye, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent

No.4 - BCI has referred to the fact that by a communication dated

14th September 2026, Respondent No.4 - BCI has not granted

approval citing various deficiencies on the part of the said College,

which is a new college. He has accordingly stated that the Petitioners

would be required to remove the deficiencies and without which

Respondent No.4 - BCI cannot grant approval for current Academic

Year 2026-2027.


3.           Mr. Prashant Malik, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners has pointed out that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State

has granted permission to start the said College for Academic Year

2026-2027.


4.           Respondent No.3 - Pune University, has also granted its

approval for starting the new college.




                                 2/3
                                                    902-WP 12690.2026.doc

5.             We do not find any infirmity in the decision taken by

Respondent No.4 - BCI in not granting the approval. The Petitioner

No.2 - College being a new College, is required to remove the

deficiencies and then only it may be allowed to start the said College

which can now only be for the next Academic Year viz. 2027-2028.


6.             Accordingly, we dispose of the present Petition. We keep

it open for the Petitioners to apply to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 –

State and Respondent No.3 – Pune University for granting approval

for the next Academic Year viz. 2027-2028 and upon such application

being made, the Respondents shall expeditiously decide the

application.


7.             The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with no

order as to costs.




     [ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ]                 [ R.I. CHAGLA, J. ]




                                   3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.