Disposed¶25

Masooq Rahman v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC7 Jul 2026WPA(P)/129/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

From the memo dated 31st May, 2025 issued on behalf of the BCI it is explicit that JRSET College of Law is enjoying provisional approval of affiliation. ¶22

Masooq Rahman Vs Bar Council of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the approval and affiliation granted to JRSET College of Law should be revoked on account of alleged breaches of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, including admissions far beyond the sanctioned intake capacity, failure to maintain the prescribed faculty-student ratio and inadequate infrastructure. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

From the memo dated 31st May, 2025 issued on behalf of the BCI it is explicit that JRSET College of Law is enjoying provisional approval of affiliation.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Extension of such provisional approval of affiliation is subject to compliance of all circulars/directives/guidelines/notifications issued from time to time by the BCI.

¶22

Key takeaways

The memo dated 3rd September, 2024 certifies that respondent no.12 submitted his resignation from the post of Office Assistant in the college and has been released on and from 3rd September, 2024.ratio¶22
Given the provisional status of the college's approval of affiliation (conditioned on compliance with BCI requirements) and the certified resignation of respondent no.12, no further interference is called for in the present PIL.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL (WPA (P) 129 of 2026; decided 07.07.2026) by Masooq Rahman versus The Bar Council of India & ors., before a two-Member Bench (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.; Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.). The petitioner sought directions to revoke the approval and affiliation granted to JRSET College of Law (affiliated to the University of Kalyani and recognised by the BCI) and to terminate the services of respondent no.12, a non-teaching employee allegedly controlling the internal assessment and examination process. Grievances included admissions far beyond the sanctioned intake capacity, failure to maintain the prescribed faculty-student ratio and inadequate infrastructure, in purported violation of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. Counsel for the college pointed to regularisation of admissions for 2022-2025 and permission for 2025-2026 per a BCI memo dated 31st May, 2025; respondent no.12 was shown to have resigned as Office Assistant effective 3rd September, 2024. The Bench found from the BCI memo that the college enjoys only provisional approval of affiliation, its extension being conditioned on compliance with the Legal Education Rules and all BCI circulars/directives/guidelines/notifications, and that respondent no.12's resignation stood certified; accordingly, no further interference was called for. The PIL was disposed of without costs.

¶1

07.07.2026 Item No.24 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra

¶2

WPA (P) 129 of 2026

¶3

Masooq Rahman

¶4

- Versus – The Bar Council of India & ors.

¶5

Mr. Robiul Islam, Mr. K.M. Hossain, Mr. Sk. Jayad Hossain, Mr. Kazi Arban Ali, Mr. Mayukh Saha …for the petitioner Mr. Avinash Kankani ….for the Bar Council of India Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri, Mr. N. Roy …for the Kalyani University Mr. Pappu Adhikari …for the respondent no.12 Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Samir Halder, Mr. Snehal Sinha …for the respondent nos. 9 to 11

¶6

Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record.

¶7

The present Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL) has been preferred, inter alia, praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to revoke the approval and affiliation granted to the JRSET College of Law (in short, the said college) for imparting legal education and also to immediately terminate the services of the respondent no.12.

¶8

Mr. Islam, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the said college though affiliated to the University of Kalyani (in short, said

¶9

¶10

University) and recognised by the Bar Council of India (in short, BCI), has acted in blatant violation of the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules on Legal Education, 2008 by admitting students far beyond the sanctioned intake capacity.

¶11

He alleges that the said college had miserably failed to maintain the prescribed faculty-student ratio and it also does not have proper infrastructural facilities for conducting the LL.B course.

¶12

He contends that the respondent no.12, a nonteaching employee of the said college, is having absolute control over the internal assessment and examination process and in spite of repeated complaints, appropriate steps have not been taken by the authorities.

¶13

Mr. Dhar, learned senior advocate appearing for the said college and its functionaries denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Islam and submits that the admission of students pertaining to the earlier academic period/years 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 of the said college has been regularised and permission has also been granted to admit students in imparting three year LL.B degree course with intake of one section and five year BA

¶14

¶15

LL.B (H) course with intake of two sections of 60 students in each section for a period of one year i.e., for the academic year 2025-2026 subject to compliance of Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and that as such the allegations levelled in the writ petition are absolutely unfounded. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon a memo dated 31^st May, 2025 issued on behalf of the BCI. Let the said memo, as placed, be kept on record.

¶16

He further submits that the contention of Mr. Islam that the respondent no.12 has absolute control over the affairs of the said college, is unfounded inasmuch as the said respondent no.12 has already resigned on and from 3^rd September, 2024 and since then he has not been allowed to enter the college premises.

¶17

Mr. Adhikari, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.12 has placed before this Court a release order-cum-experience certificate issued by the President of the said college on 3^rd September, 2024 wherefrom it appears that the respondent no.12 submitted his resignation and he had been, accordingly, released on and from September, 2024. Let the memo dated 3^rd September, 2024, as placed, be kept on record.

¶18

¶19

Mr. Kankani, learned advocate appearing for the BCI submits that the approval of affiliation granted to the said college is provisional and subject to compliance of Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and all circulars/directives/guidelines/notifications issued from time to time by the BCI and to that effect the college is required to file an affidavit-of-compliance of all terms and conditions.

¶20

Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the University and disputes the contention of Mr. Islam.

¶21

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶22

From the memo dated 31^st May, 2025 issued on behalf of the BCI, it is explicit that the said college is enjoying provisional approval of affiliation and extension of such approval is subject to compliance of all circulars/directives/guidelines/notifications issued from time to time by the BCI. The memo dated 3^rd September, 2024 certifies that the respondent no.12 submitted his resignation from the post of Office Assistant in the said college and has been released on and from 3^rd September, 2024.

¶23

¶24

It has also been contended on behalf of BCI that in the event the college fails to comply with the specified conditions, as detailed in the memo dated 31^st May, 2025, it would not be possible to extend the approval of affiliation status.

¶25

In the said conspectus, we are of the opinion that no further interference is called for in the present PIL and the same is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶26

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.

¶27

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)

Masooq Rahman v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masooq Rahman v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandip Kuila Vs the Election Commission of India and Ors.

Right and Justice Foundation and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Jobed and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Urbasi Banerjee (Bhattacharyya) Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Farooque Uddin Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

MD Samim Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.