New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 23) issued notice and sought the response of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and said that it will examine if the BCI, as a as a statutory regulator of the legal profession, has the power to control and regulate law colleges or universities, reported LiveLaw.“How the BCI is expert body to regulate legal education? What do they know about legal education? There are eminent law scholars, academia…you can lay down general guidelines…curriculum should be 4 or 5 year…but you can’t control,” said Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Wednesday.CJI Kant made the remarks as he along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana were hearing hearing pleas challenging the functioning of the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust and the establishment of law institutions by the Trust.“Whether law school can be regulated? If that is answered, this is resolved. We’d like to examine whether BCI has power to control and regulate university/law college,” said CJI Kant.Earlier, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the BCI in 2016 had passed a resolution abolishing its earlier Trust and transferring its funds to a new Trust. Bhushan also referred to a pending Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation and questioned the subsequent creation of the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust.Bhushan further alleged that BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had declared himself a lifetime trustee of the Trust. He added that the Trust has established one law college in Goa and another in Andhra Pradesh.“The Acts say BCI will nominate 27 out of 35 members of the Executive Council. It also says the Trust will run the law colleges,” said Bhushan.“The regulator can’t run this law college,” he added, saying that it raised an issue of conflict of interest.Thereafter, CJI summed up the main issue arising for consideration.“How can BCI regulate law colleges? That’s the real question,” said CJI Kant while subsequently issuing the notices.The Supreme Court hearing just days after three members of the BCI opposed Mishra’s bid to change the working rules of the trust set up under his watch in 2020. The rules Mishra sought to change are under the Supreme Court of India’s scanner and pertain to permanent positions on the PEARL-FIRST Trust.The Supreme Court had earlier in September asked how the BCI could make rules for its trust that extend after the tenure of its members. It had placed several other restrictions on the functioning of both Mishra and the BCI and its trust pending a resolution of the issues.PEARL-FIRST is an acronym for Trust for Promotion of Education (Legal and Professional) and Reforms in Law and Improvement of Research and Social Training. The earlier trust was named BCI Trust.Since the PEARL-FIRST Trust was set up with the aim to promote legal education and awareness, the three BCI members have sought a thorough accounting of its expenditures and the purposes for which the amounts have been accessed over the years.It has sought examination of allegations of nepotism at Indian Institute of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), including appointment-related records starting from advertising for the positions at the institute and final selection.Mishra, who is also a Rajya Sabha MP from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has been in the eye of a storm since August 13, when he sought to cancel the enrolment of all students in the 2026 batch at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, because a section of students had objected to the Chief Justice of India attending their convocation as the chief guest. The students had raised objections as CJI Surya Kant had referred to the unemployed and some others as “cockroaches”.As Mishra’s effort to cancel their enrolment had snowballed into student protests at other law universities, he had first withdrawn his order and subsequently apologised.