APHC010162862026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No.393 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-8 [3579] Sri Venkateswara University and another ...Appellants Vs. K.M.R. Law College and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Learned Advocate General Advocate for Respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, Ms. K. Radhika, Sri R. Subba Rayudu representing Sri G. Venkata Reddy. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 27th April 2026 LISA GILL, CJ. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order dated 20.02.2026 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.32408 of 2025 whereby, impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by appellant has been set aside and writ petition allowed. Learned Single Judge further directed appellant University to reconsider grant of affiliation to writ petitioner/College while taking note of adequacy of space as discussed in the order. 2 HCJ & NJSJ WA_393_2026 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that respondent No.1/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.32408 of 2025 for setting aside order dated 07.11.2025 whereby affiliation to petitioner College was not granted for the academic year 2025-2026. Affiliation was denied on the ground of non-compliance of Bar Council of India (B.C.I.) norms to the extent that there is no separate demarcated land or building for the Law College and that University procedure is not followed in staff recruitment. Furthermore, Principal is not having 15 years of teaching experience in Law College as per the B.C.I. Law Guidelines. Two faculty members have not submitted their Aadhar Cards to check their working status in the same college. 3. Learned Single Bench, on considering the facts and circumstances, concluded that Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (for short, “the Rules of 2008”) do not specifically contemplate a separate building and all that is required is that the Law College would have exclusive, sufficient floor space so as to effectively run a professional Law College, even in a multi faculty building and Rule 16 of Schedule III of the Rules of 2008 do not mandate 15 years of teaching experience to be appointed as Principal of Law College. Objection No.4 was found to be trivial in nature and the University is directed to re-examine the same in the light of explanation given by writ petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that Rules of 2008 are categoric and provide for specific provisions which need to be complied with before 3 HCJ & NJSJ WA_393_2026 affiliation can be granted to a Law College. Appellants do not have any problem in re-examining the matter in terms of the said applicable Rules. However, findings of learned Single Judge to the extent that only sufficient and adequate floor space is required to effectively run professional law courses even in a multi faculty building is not correct. Even in the case of Multi Faculty Institutions, requisite area has to be exclusively dedicated for Centre of Legal Education. Reference has been made to Rule 16 of the Rules of 2008, which provide that adequate land and dedicated space has to be provided for running a Law College. Moreover, as per Objection No.3, Rule 16(iv) of the Rules of 2008 requires that the Principal must be qualified as a Professor of Law as stipulated under U.G.C. and Bar Council of India Rules. The U.G.C. Regulations, 2018 and B.C.I. Guidelines prescribe minimum experience requirements for appointment as Professor of Law. The learned Single Bench erred in holding that 15 years of teaching experience is not required, without adverting to or examining the applicable U.G.C. Regulations and B.C.I. Guidelines. Further, Objection No.4 in respect to faculty members’ Aadhar Cards verification cannot be termed trivial in view of specific applicable rules. Adequate number of full time and visiting faculty members have to be recruited. 5. It is further stated that in an inspection which was carried out on 14.10.2023, it had been pointed out to writ petitioner that premises in question should be demarcated separately for the Law College, as an Engineering College is already existing in the same premises. 4 HCJ & NJSJ WA_393_2026 6. Learned counsel for appellants points out that pursuant to order dated 28.10.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.1120 of 2025, inspection of premises was carried out on 04.11.2025 and it was revealed that the relevant guidelines have not been complied with. Order dated 07.11.2025 was passed not recommending grant of affiliation to the respondent Institution, though concededly without any opportunity of hearing to writ petitioner. Compliance of order dated 28.10.2025 passed in W.A.No.1120 of 2025 is cited as the reason. It is, thus, submitted that re-examination of the issue be permitted in consonance with applicable Rules of 2008. 7. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Institution, has submitted that land and building for the Law College i.e., Ac.2-16 cents has been dedicated to its exclusive use, whereas the requirement is only Ac.2-00 cents, as per the rules. 8. It is submitted that in case an opportunity had been afforded to the Institution to clarify the objections as have been raised, it would have been brought to notice of the University that no such objection as raised remains. Dedicated land for exclusive use of the Law College is provided. Moreover, the Institution is fully willing and ready to appoint Principal with more than 15 years of teaching experience in law and is also submitting the Aadhar Cards of all faculty members for verification. Reply to the deficiencies was submitted by the Institution though after passing of order dated 07.11.2025 as no adequate opportunity had been provided. 5 HCJ & NJSJ WA_393_2026 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file. 10. It is a matter of record that affiliation to the Institution had been denied on the basis of certain shortcomings and non-compliance of the Rules of 2008. It is further not denied that impugned order dated 07.11.2025 was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Institution. Though no serious objection is raised in respect to reconsideration of issue, anxiety expressed by learned counsel for appellants is that learned Single Bench, vide impugned order dated 20.02.2026, has held that there is no requirement of dedicated area required for running of the Law College. 11. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that Rules of Legal Education issued by the Bar Council of India are clear and specific in this regard. Relevant rule i.e., Rule 16 reads as under:- “16. Conditions for a University to affiliate a Centre of Legal Education:- (1) When a University receives an application for affiliation of a Centre of Legal Education to provide legal education by running professional degree program in law under either or both the streams, the University may before deciding whether it is fit case for seeking inspection from the Bar Council of India, shall ensure that (i) the applicant organization proposing to run the institution is either already a non-profit organization of trust or registered society or a non-profit company or any other such legal entity or has taken all legal formalities to be as such, 6 HCJ & NJSJ WA_393_2026 (ii) the institution has in its name either in freehold or leasehold, adequate land and buildings, to provide for Centre of Legal Education building, library, halls of residences separately for male and female and sports complex both indoor and outdoor, so that it can effectively run professional law courses provided that in case of leasehold the lease is not less than ten years, Provided that sufficient and adequate floor space area specially and completely devoted for a Centre of Legal Education, based on the size of its student population, faculty requirement, adequate space required for infrastructure facilities can be considered sufficient accommodation for the purpose in a multi-faculty building on land possessed by the Management of a Society/Trust running multi-faculty institutions. (iii) recruited or taken steps to recruit adequate number of full time and visiting faculty members to teach each subjects of studies, each faculty having at least a Master Degree in the respective subject as required under the UGC Rules, (iv) there is the separate Centres of Legal Education for the study of law under a separate Principal who should be qualified in Law to be a Professor of Law as stipulated under UGC and Bar Council of India rules, (v) there is adequate space for reading in the library and there are required number of books and journals and adequate number of computers and computer terminals under a qualified librarian, (vi) if the prior permission of the State Government is necessary, a no objection certificate is obtained to apply for affiliation, (vii) a minimum Capital Fund as may be required under Schedule III from time to time by the Bar Council of India, and put into a Bank Account in the name of the proposed Centre of Legal Education sponsored by any private sponsor or sponsors, and (viii) all other conditions of affiliation under the University rules as well as the Bar Council of India Rules are complied with. 7 HCJ & NJSJ WA_393_2026 (2) After affiliation order is received from the University the Centres of Legal Education may only then apply for inspection by the Bar Council of India.” 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the Institution does not deny that specific dedicated space for exclusive use of the Law College is a pre-requisite as is the condition regarding full time faculty members. It is submitted that aforesaid necessary conditions have been complied with by the Institution. 13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, it is directed that matter be considered afresh by appellant University while taking into account the specific reply given by the Institution in a time bound manner and definitely within a period of two (2) weeks. Any additional documents or reply which the Institution may wish to file can be done within the next three (3) working days. The Institution would also submit an undertaking before the University that the devoted/dedicated space as per Rules of 2008 for the exclusive use of the Law College itself shall be provided and for no other purpose and that no proposal has been submitted before any other authority for use of subject Ac.2-16 cents of land. 14. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for respondent Institution that in case any applications had been submitted earlier for use of the concerned land for any other faculty, it shall now not be used for the same except for running of the Law College. 15. In case any document is required by the University to arrive at a proper conclusion, the same be called for within the next two (2) days. The same 8 HCJ & NJSJ WA_393_2026 shall be submitted by the Institution within the next three (3) days and thereafter, a decision be taken after conducting an inspection as may be required. In case of a decision adverse to the Institution, let there be a reasoned order and the same be communicated to it. 16. Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J AMD 9 HCJ & NJSJ WA_393_2026 148 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT APPEAL No.393 of 2026 Dt:27.04.2026 AMD