Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Against Mumbai University's Law College Intake Cut

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the University of Mumbai's decision to reduce the intake capacity of students in several affiliated law colleges.

The PIL, filed by Lawyers' Foundation, questioned the University's decision to reduce by 50 per cent the intake for three-year and five-year LLB courses in around 45 law colleges for the 2026-27 academic year.

During the hearing, the bench repeatedly questioned the maintainability of the petition, observing that academic matters could not be challenged by a lawyers' body. The court also questioned how the petitioner had obtained certain confidential details related to a college.

The Court specifically mentioned Rizvi College of Law, which was operating without any approved faculty. The University's advocate, Rui Rodrigues, submitted that Rizvi College did not have an approved principal, an in-charge principal, or even a single approved faculty member.

The bench observed that issues concerning the functioning of law colleges fall within the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India (BCI). The court was irked by the petitioner's advocate's justification that the petition was not just for Rizvi College, as there were other colleges as well.

The court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹1 lakh, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount within 30 days. The bench held that the petition was not a genuine public interest case and that the petitioner had been put up by Rizvi Law College.

The University of Mumbai's decision to reduce the intake capacity of students in several affiliated law colleges was taken despite proposals submitted by the colleges. However, the court upheld the decision, stating that academic matters could not be challenged by a lawyers' body.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has jurisdiction over issues concerning the functioning of law colleges. The court's decision highlights the importance of the BCI's role in regulating law colleges and ensuring that they meet the required standards.

The dismissal of the PIL with costs of ₹1 lakh sends a strong message that frivolous petitions will not be entertained by the court. The court's decision also underscores the need for genuine public interest litigations that are not motivated by personal interests.

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court's decision to dismiss the PIL against Mumbai University's law college intake cut is a significant development in the field of education. The court's emphasis on the BCI's jurisdiction and the need for genuine public interest litigations highlights the importance of ensuring that academic matters are regulated by the relevant authorities and that the courts are not misused for personal gain.