Report. S. Muneer
Aligarh. Century old institute the Faculty of Law at the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is recognized as an institute of national importance and has long been regarded as one of India’s premier law schools. Established in 1891 as part of AMU’s foundational structure offers programs like the five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) and LLM and attracts students from across the Country. However, recent developments, particularly in the 2025-26 academic session, have cast a shadow over its reputation due to allegations of gross irregularities in admissions, examinations, and administrative practices. These issues raise serious concerns about compliance with regulatory bodies like the Bar Council of India (BCI), the future of enrolled students and the overall integrity of legal education at the Faculty.
The BCI as the statutory body regulating legal education in India approves law colleges, monitors admissions, examinations, degree verification, and sanctions seat capacities to ensure quality and standardization. According to sources the BCI has sanctioned a total of 240 seats for the BA LLB program across its three centres, 120 at the main Aligarh campus, and 60 each at the off-campus centres in Malappuram (Kerala) and Murshidabad (West Bengal). The BCI has periodically reviewed the Faculty confirming its recognition for the five-year BA LLB course.
According to sources Ignoring these BCI limits the 2025-26 session admitted significantly more students. At the main Aligarh centre, where only 120 seats are approved, admissions have reportedly reached 190 under the regular scheme, exceeding the cap by 70. Additionally, 70 more seats have been filled under the Self-Financing Scheme (SFS), along with Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quotas and other categories. The off-campus centres limit of 60 seats for admission each have been exceeded. The total intake was well beyond the recognition BCI limit of 240-seats.AMU’s SFS introduced to accommodate additional students by charging higher fees is earmarked “over and above the approved intake” for various courses, as outlined in the university’s Guide to Admissions 2025-26. The Vice Chancellor approves these extra seats annually with applications processed through a dedicated SFS portal. For the 2025-26 session SFS admissions for undergraduate and postgraduate programs, including law, were extended with revised counselling schedules as late as October 2025. However, BCI regulations strictly limit supernumerary seats beyond sanctioned intake to 10% for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota, it has no provision for broad SFS admissions. Any admissions exceeding the without explicit approval of BCI could renders the degrees invalid as it does not recognize unapproved seats.
According to sources this practice has sparked whispers within the faculty about the bleak academic future for students on these “non-recognized” seats. There is a grave danger that degrees from unapproved programs may not qualify the graduates for bar enrolment or legal practice leading to potential lawsuits and career setbacks. Internal discussions in the Board of Studies meetings, , acknowledging the risks, have reportedly contemplated reducing these unsanctioned seats from the next academic year. Such over-admissions not only strained the infrastructure and Faculty resources but also undermines the merit-based system, potentially favouring fee-paying candidates over the qualified.
Examination and Assessment Irregularities
According to sources the admissions issues are compounded by a history of examination-related controversies. In December 2025, the faculty faced student protests over the reuse of last year’s question paper for the “Legal Methods” (BLLB-105) exam in the BA LLB first-year program. Students alleged administrative negligence, leading to demands for a retest and accountability. Dharna protests continued for days, highlighting systemic lapses in paper-setting and distribution. This incident echoes earlier grievances, such as the 2021 shift from online vivas to take-home assignments following student agitation and a BCI expert committee report. Critics argue these recurring problems point to a “hub of irregularities,” where oversight failures erode trust in the evaluation process.
According to sources broader governance issues at AMU have also impacted the Faculty of Law. In August 2025, the Supreme Court questioned the Vice-Chancellor’s appointment amid allegations of conflict of interest. Earlier, in July 2024 legal battles arose over irregularities in the VC selection process potentially affecting faculty decisions like admissions and seat approvals. The University’s ongoing Supreme Court case regarding its minority status, i.e. whether it qualifies for reservations under Article 30, has added layers of complexity, with hearings continuing into 2024 and beyond. AMU has denied providing religious-based reservations in admissions, but the unresolved status fuels debates on equity.
The fee hikes in August 2025 triggered protests with students accusing the administration of a “rightward shift” in policies by prioritizing revenue over accessibility. Vacant posts, including a full-time VC, and dilution of the university’s minority character have been cited as contributing to administrative chaos and Off-campus centres face similar scrutiny, with doubts on BCI authorization and degree verification.
The irregularities of Over-admissions risk invalidating degrees, exposing students to legal and professional uncertainties. AMU’s Faculty of Law create profound concerns for a top-ranked institution. The issue is further aggravated combined with examination mishaps and governance lapses suggest a pattern of non-compliance that could invite BCI sanctions, similar to the 2025 ban on 11 other law colleges for failing the inspections.
While AMU maintains its commitment to excellence, as evidenced by alumni achievements like top ranks in judicial services addressing these issues is crucial to restore credibility. Without reform, the faculty risks becoming synonymous with controversy rather than academic rigor. Stakeholders, including alumni and legal experts, urge immediate audits, transparency in SFS implementations, and alignment with BCI norms to safeguard the University’s legacy.
In this regard The Member in Charge Public Relations office was contacted through a WhatsApp message to make a comment on the issue; however, no reply was received till the publication of this news.
The Vice Chancellor was contacted through a WhatsApp message to make a comment on the issue; however, no reply was received till the publication of this news.
