'Rethink' Withholding Enrolment Certificate Of Graduates From Unrecognised Law Colleges Which Haven't Paid Inspection Fee: Gujarat HC To BCI

In a plea by law graduates from unrecognized institutions aggrieved by non-issuance of enrolment certificates, the Gujarat High Court "prima facie" observed that BCI's action was unjustified asking it to rethink and appropriately decide on granting enrollment certificates wherein institutions have not paid fee for retrospective recognition.

It said that it appeared that after a student has graduated from a law college, specially grant-in-aid colleges and where the student had been allotted a law college through university, the enrollment of the students after having completed their course should "not be held hostage" on account of the institutions not paying the requisite fees.

The powers available with the BCI to grant concession in the matter of paying fees, i.e paying the requisite fees after more than a decade, should not act as a hindrance in any manner whatsoever to the bar body in issuing appropriate enrollment certificates to the students in question, it further said. 

The court was hearing a plea by petitioner law students aggrieved by the fact that the students who have completed their LLB courses from certain law colleges, are being denied their enrollment certificates since the BCI had held that these students had passed out from unrecognized law colleges.

The petitioners said that the enrollment certificates of the candidates who have passed out from the institutions cannot be kept pending on account of the institutions not paying the requisite fees to the bar body for recognition. 

The court was also informed that while some of the respondent colleges had shown inclination to pay the fees and whereas such colleges have sought for grant of installments to pay the fees, there are certain institutions, who claimed "complete inability to pay any fees".  The students thus argued that the concerned institutions may or may not pay the fees as prescribed by the BCI for retrospective recognition, but the enrollment certificate of the candidates must not be subject to such payment.

After hearing the arguments, Justice Nikhil S. Kariel in his order said that "prima facie" there appears to be substance in the submissions of the students. 

The court observed that the BCI had as a special case, decided to grant post facto/retrospective approval upon payment of inspection fees etc. by the colleges concerned

"It would not appear to this Court that by paying the fees, more than a decade after the same has been payable any tangible difference would be made towards the education already imparted to the students. To this Court it would also appear that the BCI may have formulated such a policy to ensure that all the legal requirements are fulfilled but at the same time to this Court it would appear that the BCI has missed out the most important aspect of this entire issue i.e. making appropriate provision with regard to the most important stakeholders in the dispute i.e the students who have already passed out their law courses during the years in question". 

The court observed that the enrollment certificates of the students are held up since the Institutions have either sought for time to make payment or have shown their inability to pay, observing that this consideration may not be justified since payment of fees is an issue between BCI and the concerned institution. In case the institution does not pay the requisite recognition fees the same should not preclude BCI from issuing enrollment certificates to law students, it said. 

"It would appear in this regard to this Court that the Bar Council of India has only shown their inability to issue the enrollment certificates on the ground of Section 24 of the Advocates Act which inter alia precludes the BCI from issuing certificate from a university ( which shall also be read as an institution) which is not recognized for such purpose by the BCI. To this Court it would appear that all the institutions concerned, would not be termed as unrecognized institutions per se because the recognition is now made subject to payment of fees by the BCI. Therefore, it would appear that the only irregularity in the recognition is with regard to nonpayment of requisite fees and therefore, to this Court it would appear that the institutions could not be termed as institutions which do not have recognition rather it could be said that the recognition of the institution is pending payment of fees by the institution to the BCI".

The court said that it appears that such non-payment of fees should not and ought not to have hindered the BCI from granting enrolment to the concerned students. If the institutions do not make appropriate payment, then action against the institution by the BCI for prospective years or action against the institution for recovery as per the regular mode of recovery as known to the law could have been undertaken by the Bar Council, the court said.

"To keep a student in suspended animation after having put in three/ five years education, i.e. to say that the student having completed his education is told that his enrolment as an Advocate would be subject to the institution paying the fees for years which he did his law or for years much before he did his law to this Court would be prima facie absolutely unjustified and arbitrary," it said. 

The petition was filed seeking a direction to the BCI to approve and regularize all grant-in-aid colleges in Gujarat for students admitted through the university till academic year 2023-24 and it raised grievance against the students who had completed their LLB courses were being denied enrolment certificates as their colleges were not recognized by the BCI at the relevant time.

"To this Court it would appear that before passing any orders at this stage, considering that the BCI has been recognized as the apex body regulating legal education through out the Country, therefore an opportunity is required to be granted to the BCI to have a rethink on the entire issue. As noted hereinabove while this Court does not and is not concerned with the BCI charging fees from the institutions for post facto/retrospective recognition but this Court prima facie is of the opinion that the BCI may not be justified in withholding the enrollment of the students who have passed their law courses from such institution more particularly this Court being of the prima facie opinion that such institution could not be treated as per se unrecognized institutions," the court said. 

After it was told that the meeting of BCI's Legal Education Committee is schdeuled on July 5, it thus asked the bar body to take an appropriate decision regarding grant of enrollment certificate to the students in whose case the institutions have not paid the requisite fees retrospective recognition. It asked the committee to place the decision before the court by July 14. 

It clarified that the BCI may take action against such institutions prospectively or recover dues through legal means, but this should not affect students' enrolment.

"It is fervently hoped by this Court that the policy makers in the BCI/Legal Education Committee are alive to the plight of students involved in the present case. This Court notes that many of the colleges in the present case are from Tier II, Tier – III cities of the State and are also not the so called elite institutions. A student having completed his law course, yearning to earn a livelihood for himself and possibly for his family may not be precluded from doing the same since the colleges had not at the relevant point of time paid the requisite fees," the court concluded. 

Listing the matter on July 15 the court clarified that its observations are prima facie in nature.

Case Title: Umesh Varjanbhai Panchal & Ors. vs State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case Number: Special Civil Application 8388 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order