NEW DELHI, Sept. 4: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State bar councils do not have statutory authority to take disciplinary action against law students, holding that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of their educational institutions.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that the Advocates Act, 1961, does not grant the BCI or State bar councils either express or implied powers to regulate the conduct of students pursuing legal education.
The court said disciplinary action against law students can be taken only by their parent institution or an authority empowered under the institution’s regulations or by-laws.
The Supreme Court delivered the ruling while hearing a plea arising from the controversy involving students of Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law and the BCI’s intervention over objections raised against the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant in the university’s convocation.
The court also set aside two communications issued by the BCI in connection with the dispute, despite the fact that the communications had been withdrawn shortly after being issued following criticism.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 the petition filed by NALSAR alumni Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari.
The petitioners had challenged directions issued by BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on August 13, under which the enrolment of NALSAR students as advocates was to be kept in abeyance and an inquiry was proposed into the circumstances surrounding the controversy.
The directions were withdrawn within hours after they triggered widespread public criticism.
During the proceedings, senior advocate K Parameshwar, representing the law students, argued that the withdrawal of the communications did not completely resolve the issue. He sought an inquiry into the circumstances under which the BCI directions had been issued.
Parameshwar submitted that the dispute involved a broader question concerning freedom of speech and expression within a university and was not confined to an individual student.
He also questioned the manner in which a statutory body responsible for legal education and regulation of the legal profession had intervened in a matter involving students who had not yet entered the legal profession.
BCI Chairman Mishra, appearing before the court as senior counsel, maintained that the communications had been withdrawn within an hour and urged that the matter be brought to an end.
The Chief Justice clarified the distinction between the BCI’s authority over practising advocates and its jurisdiction over law students.
The court noted that the BCI’s statutory disciplinary powers become relevant after a law graduate is enrolled as an advocate. Until that stage, matters concerning student conduct remain under the authority of the concerned educational institution.
The controversy emerged in August when the BCI instructed State bar councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates as advocates until further orders. The move followed allegations surrounding a campaign by students opposing the proposed appearance of the CJI at the university’s convocation.
The Supreme Court had earlier expressed strong disapproval of the BCI’s intervention when the issue was brought before it, with the CJI questioning the authority of the regulatory body to interfere in a dialogue between students and the university’s leadership.
The latest ruling establishes that disciplinary jurisdiction over law students rests with their respective institutions and cannot be assumed by the BCI merely because it has statutory responsibility for legal education and the legal profession.