In Prakruthi Jain v. Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court considered a constitutional challenge to regulatory circulars issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) requiring recognised law institutions to implement criminal background verification systems, mandatory biometric attendance mechanisms, and CCTV surveillance infrastructure across campuses. The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that these directives exceeded the BCI’s statutory mandate under the Advocates Act, 1961 and violated students’ fundamental rights relating to privacy, dignity, academic freedom, and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.

Legal Issue 

Whether the Bar Council of India (BCI) has the statutory authority under the Advocates Act, 1961, to mandate criminal background checks, biometric attendance tracking, and CCTV surveillance in law colleges, or if such administrative directives infringe upon students' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, Prakruthi Jain, appearing in person, filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging regulatory circulars issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) concerning law institutions. Under these circulars, the BCI directed all recognised law colleges to implement a comprehensive Criminal Background Check System, obtain declarations from students and employees, enforce mandatory biometric attendance mechanisms, and install CCTV surveillance across classrooms and important common areas within campuses.

The petitioner contended that these directions exceeded the statutory powers of the BCI in regulating legal education and imposed intrusive surveillance measures upon students. It was argued that the directives created unreasonable restrictions and infringed students’ rights to privacy, personal liberty, and academic freedom.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court observed that the constitutional validity of the impugned regulatory framework and the privacy concerns arising from biometric data collection, particularly where third-party intermediaries may be involved, required detailed constitutional examination. The Court noted that the matter raised substantial questions concerning the precise statutory limits of the BCI’s administrative authority and whether such powers extend to implementing surveillance mechanisms or imposing disciplinary consequences under the guise of maintaining ethical and educational standards.

Considering the significant constitutional implications, the Bench held that the matter warranted comprehensive judicial scrutiny in order to balance institutional regulatory control with individual privacy rights, personal liberties, and academic autonomy.

Judgment

The Supreme Court condoned the procedural delays in filing and permitted the petitioner to appear and argue the matter in person. The Court further issued notice to the Bar Council of India directing it to file its response to the issues raised in the petition.

Subsequent Development

The matter has now entered an important stage and runs parallel to broader debates concerning mandatory attendance policies, institutional regulation, and educational autonomy. The Supreme Court has also stayed connected High Court directions seeking relaxation of attendance requirements, indicating that the eventual outcome of the present proceedings may substantially influence future standards relating to student data privacy, surveillance measures, and the extent of the BCI’s disciplinary powers over legal education institutions in India.

Access the Official judgment here:

Case Title

Prakruthi Jain v. Bar Council of India

Neutral Citation 

W.P.(C) No. 31/2025

Court 

Supreme Court of India

Bench 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta