Whalesbook
THE SEAMLESS LINK
This performance underscores a critical disconnect between institutional operational compliance and public perception, as highlighted by the Bar Council of India's (BCI) recent action against Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University (RMLNLU), Lucknow. The BCI's notice, issued on June 6th, directly challenges the university's claims regarding its lapsed BCI approval, labeling them "factually incomplete, legally untenable and materially misleading." The council's stance is that RMLNLU's current predicament is a direct result of its own operational shortcomings, including delayed submissions and a failure to adhere to regulatory mandates.
University's Oversight Triggered Lapsed Approval
The BCI has refuted RMLNLU's public assertions that the delay in approval is solely due to the council's inaction. Official records indicate that the university's own oversights, coupled with non-compliance and a failure to secure prior and continuing approval for essential academic sessions, have precipitated the current situation. This development follows student protests concerning RMLNLU's absence from the BCI's official roster of approved Centres of Legal Education (CLEs).
Statutory Approval Versus Portal Updates
A key distinction has been drawn by the BCI between routine portal updation and the essential statutory extension of approval. Filings made on the BCI portal for the 2024-25 and 2025-26 academic sessions were solely for institutional data updates and did not constitute applications for course approval. The substantive application for approval extension was only submitted on April 1, 2026, alongside the requisite fees, in an attempt to retroactively secure approval from the 2023-24 academic year. The council firmly stated that "The University cannot equate portal updation with statutory approval."
Financial Shortfall and Undermined Undertakings
Further investigation revealed a significant financial discrepancy, with RMLNLU depositing only ₹1,00,000 towards the prescribed ₹5,00,000 security deposit per law course. The university is required to provide a full explanation for this shortfall. Moreover, RMLNLU's compliance affidavit only acknowledged approval up to 2023 and included an undertaking not to admit students or conduct courses without prior BCI approval. Given these commitments, the council asserts that the university cannot justify continued admissions or academic activities post-approval expiry by merely citing pending applications or fee payments.
The Forensic Bear Case: Regulatory Non-Compliance
The BCI has demanded RMLNLU present a case for its failure to maintain continuous approval, its submission of improper extension applications for three consecutive sessions, its admission of students without valid approval, and its dissemination of misleading public statements. The university has also been instructed to issue a corrective statement across all platforms where its previous assertions were circulated. This situation highlights a broader risk within the educational sector where institutions may prioritize public relations over stringent regulatory adherence, potentially jeopardizing student interests and institutional credibility. The BCI's firm stance serves as a warning to other institutions that transparency and adherence to statutory requirements are paramount.