Rajasthan HC Issues Notice Over Inaction on Law Student's Complaint Despite BCI Grievance Committee Mandate

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has issued returnable notice after a law student's complaint against college conduct went unaddressed, despite a Bar Council of India directive requiring every law college to maintain a Student Grievance Redressal Committee.

Justice Shubha Mehta, sitting singly at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, issued returnable notice on 3 July 2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10854/2026, filed by Divyansh Gupta, a student of a law college affiliated with a university that is respondent no. 5 in the petition. The petitioner's grievance is that a complaint lodged against the conduct of the college's principal — respondent no. 2 — has drawn no response, even though the Bar Council of India has directed every law college and university offering legal education to constitute a Student Grievance Redressal Committee with a duty to inquire into such complaints and submit a report. The court has called for a response within four weeks.

The Complaint and the Alleged Inaction

The petitioner, Divyansh Gupta, is a student of respondent no. 3 college, which is affiliated with respondent no. 5 university. According to the petitioner's counsel — Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta — a complaint was filed on 27 May 2026 before the chairperson and secretary of the education committee of S.S. Jain Subodh College, directed against the conduct of respondent no. 2, the principal of that institution.

The petitioner states that, as of the date of filing, no action of any kind has been taken on that complaint, and no intimation of any proceedings has been received by the petitioner.

The Bar Council of India's Standing Directive

Central to the writ petition is a direction issued by the Bar Council of India requiring each college and university engaged in imparting legal education to establish a Student Grievance Redressal Committee. Once a student complaint is received, the committee is obligated to inquire into the matter and furnish a report. The petitioner's case is that this obligation has simply not been discharged.

The Bar Council of India's directive, as set out in the petition, applies broadly to all institutions offering legal education — both at the college and university levels. The petitioner contends that the absence of any inquiry or report in response to the 27 May 2026 complaint amounts to a failure by the relevant respondents to comply with that standing obligation.

The Court's Reasoning for Issuing Notice

Justice Shubha Mehta, on hearing the petitioner's counsel, found the submission sufficient to warrant the issuance of notice to the respondents. The order records the petitioner's counsel's statement that the Bar Council of India has issued the directive and that the Student Grievance Redressal Committee is required to act on complaints of this nature. The court's decision to issue notice reflects that the alleged inaction, if established, raises a question about compliance with a regulatory body's direction in the domain of legal education.

No response from the respondents was placed before the court at this stage, and the matter proceeds to the first returnable date after the notice period.

Order

Justice Shubha Mehta directed that returnable notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. The petitioner's counsel was directed to present the requisite court fee along with the notice and an additional copy before the registry. The matter will be listed for hearing after the expiry of the four-week notice period.