PIL In Allahabad High Court Seeks Stricter Framework Against Institutions Imparting Legal Education Sans BCI Approval

The plea, moved by 26-year-old Azamgarh-based Lawyer Saurabh Singh, also seeks a direction for the inspection and identification of such institutions across the State that are imparting education and conferring degrees without obtaining necessary approvals.

The plea, moved through Advocates Siddharth Shankar Dubey and Animesh Upadhyay, has been filed against the backdrop of the recent case of Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University (SRMU), Barabanki, which has been accused of running an unrecognised law course for the past three years 

Thus, the plea further seeks to restrain the Barabanki-based university from admitting students to its law courses without valid recognition from the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The petition also seeks a refund of fees to affected students, the constitution of a State-level inspection committee, a wider inquiry into unauthorized admissions, mandatory disclosure of the university's approval status and systemic reforms in the regulation of legal education.

The petitioner submits that the University was granted only provisional recognition by the BCI for its law courses up to the academic session 2022-23. Despite the lapse of this approval, it continued to admit students in subsequent sessions 2023-24 and 2024-25, representing its law programs as duly recognized.

The plea contends that such action amounts to fraud on students who invested in degrees that may not entitle them to enrolment as advocates under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

According to the petition, this conduct violates the Advocates Act and the Legal Education Rules, 2008, and constitutes arbitrary and unauthorized admissions.

It is alleged that students were misled into believing that the University remained approved by the BCI, while those who questioned the lapse of recognition were expelled. The matter, the petitioner claims, led to student protests widely reported in the media.

The PIL also seeks a mandate from the BCI to publish and update the list of approved institutions annually before admissions commence.

In a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has recorded subsequent developments. Essentially, on September 3, 2025, the Bar Council of India issued a provisional renewal of approval to Shri Ramswaroop University.

The petitioner argues that this renewal was obtained in haste under public pressure following police lathi charges against protesting students two days earlier.

It may be noted that the renewal regularizes not only the current academic year but also retrospectively covers 2023-24 and 2024-25. The petitioner has challenged this retrospective recognition as arbitrary, ultra vires, and beyond the BCI's statutory competence.

The affidavit further points out that an FIR was registered against the University on September 3 under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Two days later, the State issued instructions to all Vice-Chancellors and the Director of Higher Education directing that no professional course, particularly law, be run without statutory approval.

Yet, the petitioner alleges, the BCI proceeded to regularize the lapse without inspection, transparency, or a speaking order and this action amounts to colourable exercise of power and erosion of public confidence in regulatory oversight.

The petitioner argues that the matter is not limited to one institution or one batch of students but raises a systemic issue of legal education standards in Uttar Pradesh.

The plea contends that Shri Ramswaroop University and similarly placed institutions will continue admitting students illegally, causing irreparable harm to them and undermining the integrity of the legal profession unless the court restrains them from doing so.