Bar council of India issues advisory against unapproved online LLM programmes
Bar council of India (Image credits: ANI)
NEW DELHI: In a decisive step toward preserving the credibility of legal education in India, the bar council of India (BCI) has issued a formal advisory against the proliferation of unapproved LLM (master of laws) programmes offered in online, distance or hybrid formats.
This advisory reinforces the exclusive regulatory role of the BCI and emphasis
es compliance with existing legal and academic frameworks.
The letter, authored by Justice Rajendra Menon, former chief justice of the
Delhi High Court
and co-chairman of the standing committee on legal education, was addressed to the registrar generals of all High Courts as well as the
Supreme Court of India
. Copies of the letter were also circulated to universities and state bar councils to ensure compliance and initiate appropriate action.
The advisory reiterates the binding authority of Supreme Court rulings, the UGC (open and distance learning) regulations, 2020, and BCI's own Legal education rules (2008 and 2020), under which LLM programmes must secure prior approval before being conducted via non-traditional methods. Any deviation, it warns, threatens the standard, uniformity, and legal sanctity of postgraduate legal education across the country.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
No Mess, Safer Chew Solution
Petlori
Learn More
Undo
Letter issued in this regards stated that, alarmed by the growing number of institutions offering programmes under alternative titles such as LLM (professional), executive LLM, or MSc in cyber law, the BCI has highlighted that many of these courses are being run without mandatory approvals. Such practices, it stated, not only violate Supreme Court directives but also mislead students and degrade academic quality.
The bar council clarified that under the Advocates Act, 1961, it is the only statutory authority empowered to regulate both undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes. No other entity, including UGC or autonomous universities, can validate LLM courses independently. The council emphasized that an LLM degree is the minimum qualification required for teaching law, and therefore any relaxation in quality or regulatory compliance directly affects the legal profession.
In light of these violations, the BCI has urged High Courts take judicial notice of the BCI's exclusive authority in legal education, Reject qualifications obtained from unapproved LLM programmes for appointments or promotions and
Require institutions and individuals to submit compliance verification from the BCI where necessary.
To protect students and uphold public trust, the bar council plans to release a public advisory cautioning against enrollment in such unauthorized programmes. It is also preparing to initiate contempt proceedings and other legal measures against institutions found violating these guidelines.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC turns down plea for exclusive control of Mahabodhi temple to Buddhists
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea that sought handing over exclusive control of the Mahabodhi temple in Bihar's Bodh Gaya to Buddhists, and asked the petitioner to approach the high court. The Mahabodhi temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar. (File Photo) The plea, filed by lawyer and former Maharashtra minister Sulekha Narayan Kumbhare, challenged the constitutional validity of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, which entrusted a nine-member committee with the temple's management, of which a majority are Hindus. Refusing to entertain the petition, a bench of justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran, said, 'How can we issue mandamus? You please approach the high court. This is not maintainable under Article 32.' The petition claimed that the management of the Mahabodhi temple should be with the Buddhists and the Act was unconstitutional for violating the right of Buddhists to profess their religion and manage their religious institutions. 'Inclusion of members in the committee who are non-Buddhists i.e. Hindus is violative of protections guaranteed to the Buddhist citizens of India and the Lord Buddha himself guaranteed under Articles 19 (right to fundamental freedoms), 21 (life and liberty), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to administer institutions), 28 and 29 (minority rights) of the Constitution of India,' the petition stated. Senior advocate Ravindra Laxman Khapre pointed out that due to mismanagement and indifference to the temple, the sacred Bodhi tree at the site is in danger of decay, as found out by a committee of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The bench dismissed the petition allowing the petitioner to raise these issues before the high court. 'We are not inclined to entertain the petition. Liberty is granted to approach the high court.' While the definition of Hindus includes Buddhists as well, the religious community was recognised as a minority in 1993 under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The petition, filed by advocate Jaydip Pati stated that the Mahabodhi temple is the holiest Buddhist shrine in India and is also a World Heritage site since the year 2002, which is not under the exclusive management of Buddhists. It said, 'Though Buddhists are defined as being part of Hindus, their independent right to profess their religion is also recognized. The said recognition therefore confers rights of Buddhists to profess their religion as per their own choice.' The petitioner argued that the surroundings and vicinity of the area, including the area of the temple, which is now under the possession of the Bodh Gaya Temple Committee used to be under control of Lord Buddha. 'In effect, the idol of Lord Buddha is the owner of the land. It is therefore submitted that the ownership of the site is vested in Lord Buddha as a juristic person.'
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
SC refuses to entertain Lalit Modi's plea seeking that BCCI pay penalty imposed on him by ED
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by former Indian Premier League chairperson Lalit Modi seeking directions to the Board of Control for Cricket in India to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said that Modi could pursue civil remedies seeking indemnification. The bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the former IPL chairperson against a Bombay High Court order dismissing his plea, Bar and Bench reported. Modi has been under investigation by Indian authorities for alleged foreign exchange violations and a Rs 425-crore television rights deal for the 2009 edition of the IPL with World Sports Group. He fled India after attending only one interrogation session with the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate officials in Mumbai. In 2018, the Enforcement Directorate imposed a fine of Rs 121.56 crore on several entities, including the BCCI, its then chairperson N Srinivasan and others. Out of this amount, Modi had been ordered to pay Rs 10.65 crore, Bar and Bench reported. The penalty, which was part of the larger Enforcement Directorate investigation into the 2009 edition of the IPL, was imposed after it was alleged that over Rs 243 crore was allegedly transferred outside India in contravention of Foreign Exchange Management Act regulations. On December 19, the High Court had dismissed a petition filed by Modi seeking an order to the BCCI to pay the penalty, calling it 'frivolous' and 'wholly misconceived', PTI reported. It also imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on Modi. In his petition, Modi had said that he served as the BCCI vice president and the chairperson of the IPL governing council when the alleged violations took place. He argued that on this account, the BCCI was obligated to indemnify him under its bylaws. However, the High Court, citing a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, said that the BCCI was not considered a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence no writ could be issued against it, PTI reported. Modi subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. In the Supreme Court on Monday, the bench reiterated that the BCCI was not a 'state' under Article 12 and hence not directly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except in certain limited functional public duties like organising sports events, Live Law reported.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Classes suspended': Kolkata law college campus where alleged rape took place closed indefinitely
A notification issued over the website of a South Kolkata law college on Sunday, where a 24-year-old student was allegedly raped last week, stated that classes will remain suspended and the college premises will be closed for all students until further notice. The decision was taken by the college's governing body. Earlier on Monday, students of the law college submitted a deputation to the principal, raising concerns over campus safety and demanding structural reforms. The letter stated, 'The environment of the institution, both in terms of safety and academic standards, has been compromised and degraded due to repeated and unchecked malpractices, many of which stem from political interference, administrative inaction, and lack of structural accountability.' The students outlined a series of demands aimed at restoring 'dignity, discipline, and academic purpose' on campus. Among the demands was the creation of an 'apolitical' campus environment, with a strict prohibition on the formation or operation of political units or activities within the college until the next student body elections. They also sought the installation of CCTV cameras at all entry and exit points, corridors, classrooms, libraries, staircases, union rooms, and common areas to improve transparency and deter misconduct. The letter emphasized that 'security and education' must be the college's top priorities, calling for a dedicated grievance redressal mechanism available both online and offline. The students further demanded that authorities be held accountable for 'systemic negligence', stating that responsibility should not be limited to isolated incidents, but must address a broader culture of tolerance for illegal and disruptive behaviour, 'often linked to political affiliations'. Citing a visible 'decline' in educational quality, they called for the revival of academic activities, including moot court sessions, legal aid camps, debates, and student academic forums, to strengthen legal training and professional development. They also demanded strict adherence to the academic calendar, with scheduled class timings enforced and penalties for habitual defaulters among both students and faculty. Among the logistical issues raised was the demand for secure access to the union room, with its keys held by a neutral college authority to prevent unauthorized control by students or staff. They also asked for the formation of an active Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act, 2013. In case the current ICC is inactive or compromised, they said victims should be guided to file complaints with the UGC or the Ministry of Education. The students called for the establishment of a non-political student safety committee, tasked with conducting awareness drives, raising safety concerns, and representing victims without fear of retribution. On the alleged rave and rape incident on June 25, the students demanded a 'zero-tolerance policy on drugs, violence, and sexual misconduct', along with a fair and independent inquiry into the matter. They also requested access to counselling and mental health services, suggesting the appointment of a full-time counsellor or a partnership with a mental health organisation. Insisting on mandatory cooperation with law enforcement, they asked the college to hand over all relevant CCTV footage and evidence from the day of the incident to the police and fully assist the investigation to ensure justice is served. The letter also included a demand for the formation of a women's grievance redressal cell, independent and apolitical, to address issues specific to female students. Finally, they called for fair and democratic student council elections, limited strictly to current students, with the process conducted in accordance with statutory provisions. 'We hope our representation will be taken in the right spirit, as it comes from a genuine place of concern and responsibility,' the letter concluded.
