BCI has no power to discipline law students, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that the Bar Council of India and state bar councils have no statutory authority to discipline law students, setting aside BCI communications issued during the NALSAR controversy over students' objections to the CJI's proposed convocation participation

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and state bar councils have no statutory power to regulate the conduct of law students, saying educational institutions are responsible for taking action against students in accordance with their own regulatory norms.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed the order while dealing with the controversy arising from the BCI’s action against students of Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law over their objections to the CJI’s proposed participation in the university’s convocation.

---

“We are of the opinion that the Advocates Act, 1961, under which the BCI has been statutorily created, does not confer any express or implied power upon the BCI or any State Bar Council to take any disciplinary action against students of law.

“Such a power is preceded by registration of a law graduate as an advocate under the said Act. So far as students are concerned, it is their parent institution or the authority prescribed under the regulations/bylaws of such institution which alone are competent to take disciplinary action,” the bench said in its order.

It set aside two notifications issued by the BCI in connection with the NALSAR row, even though both were withdrawn within hours of their issuance following widespread criticism.

“We declare all communications dated August 13 or subsequent modified communication to be without any authority of law. Interim directions made absolute,” the bench said while disposing of a plea filed by two NALSAR alumni, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari.

They had challenged BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s directions issued on August 13 that NALSAR students not be enrolled as advocates for the time being and that an inquiry be held into the entire episode.

However, following public outrage, the BCI chairperson withdrew the communications within hours of their issuance.

During the hearing, senior advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for the law students, said that although the BCI chairman’s directions had been withdrawn, there needed to be an inquiry into the manner in which they were issued. To that extent, the petition survived, he said.

“This is a question of freedom of speech and expression in a university. It is not about just one student. It is about banning freedom of speech and expression across an entire university,” he said.

Senior advocate and BCI chairperson Mishra said the letters were withdrawn within one hour of their issuance and urged the court to put the matter to quietus.

“We want to know the circumstances in which these orders came to be passed and whether meetings were held. This is, after all, a statutory authority responsible for legal education and for regulating the legal profession,” Parameshwar said.

“Everything has already been closed. The (Bar) Council, in its meeting, has said that there is nothing further and that everything has been resolved. The letter was immediately withdrawn,” the BCI head said.

“The BCI does not have jurisdiction… after someone passes out… once a law graduate gets registered as an advocate, then BCI is statutory authority to regulate conduct. But not of students,” the CJI said.

The controversy had erupted on August 14 after the BCI directed state bar councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates as advocates until further orders over allegations relating to a campaign against CJI Kant’s proposed visit to the university.

When the matter was mentioned earlier before the Supreme Court, the CJI had strongly disapproved of the BCI’s intervention, saying, “It’s a dialogue between students and me. Who are they (BCI) to interfere? This is totally uncalled for.”