Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging Mumbai University's decision to cut student intake by 50% in around 45 affiliated law colleges for 2026-27. The court, however, set aside the Rs 1 lakh cost imposed on Lawyers' Foundation by Bombay HC after the petitioner assured it would not file similar frivolous petitions. The intake cut affects three- and five-year LLB courses.

Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC Order On Maharashtra Law College Seat Cuts; Sets Aside ₹1 Lakh Cost Imposed |

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition challenging the University of Mumbai’s decision to reduce student intake by 50 per cent in affiliated law colleges in Maharashtra, while setting aside the Rs 1 lakh cost imposed on the petitioner by the Bombay High Court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana upheld the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the plea filed by Lawyers’ Foundation. However, the top court took a lenient view and removed the costs after the petitioner assured the Bench that it would not file similar frivolous petitions in the future.

“In view of the assurance made by the petitioner that they won’t be engaged in filing such frivolous petition, we take a lenient view,” the Supreme Court said while modifying the High Court order to the extent of the Rs 1 lakh cost, reported Bar and Bench. The special leave petition was consequently dismissed, with the order on costs set aside.

Petition Challenges Intake Reduction

`;

The petition challenged the Mumbai University’s decision to cut the sanctioned intake by 50 per cent for three-year and five-year LLB courses in around 45 affiliated law colleges for the 2026-27 academic year.

The Bombay High Court had dismissed the plea in July and imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh. During the hearing, the High Court had questioned how Lawyers’ Foundation had obtained certain information cited in the petition, including confidential details concerning one of the law colleges.

High Court Flags Proxy Litigation

The High Court had also observed that the petition appeared to be 'proxy litigation' filed on behalf of an affected college. It had specifically referred to Rizvi College of Law and noted that the university appeared to have taken a lenient approach despite noticing that the college was functioning without any faculty.

The High Court had questioned the circumstances in which the petitioner had access to such details and observed that the proceedings appeared to have been initiated to challenge the university’s action against Rizvi Law College.

Add As a

Trusted Source