The Crossbill News Desk
The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 3) held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and state bar councils do not have statutory authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against law students, ruling that such powers arise only after a law graduate is enrolled as an advocate.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declared communications issued by the BCI chairman in connection with the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, to be without legal authority.
“We are of the opinion that the Advocates Act, 1961, whereunder 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 the students of law; such a power is preceded by registration of a law graduate as an advocate under the said Act,” the court ordered, reported Live Law.
“We declare all communications dated August 13 or subsequent modified communication to be without any authority of law. Interim directions made absolute,” it added.
The ruling came on a writ petition filed by two NALSAR alumni, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, challenging directions issued by BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on August 13 that sought to prohibit the enrolment of the university’s 2026 graduating batch.
Although Mishra withdrew the directions shortly after issuing them, the move triggered criticism after students had opposed the invitation extended to CJI Kant to attend their convocation. The BCI chairman had also proposed an inquiry into the alleged campaign by NALSAR students and faculty against the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court had earlier intervened on August 14 and expressed disapproval of the BCI chairman’s actions, while passing interim directions protecting NALSAR students and faculty from punitive measures.
During Thursday’s hearing, the court described the BCI directives as “bad in law”.
Senior advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the withdrawal of the communications did not settle the larger issue and sought an inquiry into how the orders were issued.
“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… we want to know how these letters came to be issued, on whose authority and under what provision of law. They now say that the letters have been withdrawn, but that is not the point. They initially said that an entire batch would not be enrolled… We would like to know from the Bar Council how these meetings were held, who took the decision and under what provision of law it was done. They must be held accountable in some fashion… They ought to be called upon to answer for acting in such an arbitrary manner,” he said, as quoted by Live Law.
Mishra sought to have the matter “quietus”, arguing that the dispute had effectively ended because the communications were withdrawn within an hour of being issued. The petitioners, however, maintained that the episode raised broader questions concerning the authority of the BCI and freedom of speech and expression on university campuses.
The Supreme Court’s ruling now makes clear that disciplinary jurisdiction under the Advocates Act begins only after a law graduate becomes an enrolled advocate, leaving disciplinary oversight of students with their respective educational institutions and administrative authorities.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declared communications issued by the BCI chairman in connection with the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, to be without legal authority.
“We are of the opinion that the Advocates Act, 1961, whereunder 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 the students of law; such a power is preceded by registration of a law graduate as an advocate under the said Act,” the court ordered, reported Live Law.
“We declare all communications dated August 13 or subsequent modified communication to be without any authority of law. Interim directions made absolute,” it added.
The ruling came on a writ petition filed by two NALSAR alumni, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, challenging directions issued by BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on August 13 that sought to prohibit the enrolment of the university’s 2026 graduating batch.
Although Mishra withdrew the directions shortly after issuing them, the move triggered criticism after students had opposed the invitation extended to CJI Kant to attend their convocation. The BCI chairman had also proposed an inquiry into the alleged campaign by NALSAR students and faculty against the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court had earlier intervened on August 14 and expressed disapproval of the BCI chairman’s actions, while passing interim directions protecting NALSAR students and faculty from punitive measures.
During Thursday’s hearing, the court described the BCI directives as “bad in law”.
Senior advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the withdrawal of the communications did not settle the larger issue and sought an inquiry into how the orders were issued.
“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… we want to know how these letters came to be issued, on whose authority and under what provision of law. They now say that the letters have been withdrawn, but that is not the point. They initially said that an entire batch would not be enrolled… We would like to know from the Bar Council how these meetings were held, who took the decision and under what provision of law it was done. They must be held accountable in some fashion… They ought to be called upon to answer for acting in such an arbitrary manner,” he said, as quoted by Live Law.
Mishra sought to have the matter “quietus”, arguing that the dispute had effectively ended because the communications were withdrawn within an hour of being issued. The petitioners, however, maintained that the episode raised broader questions concerning the authority of the BCI and freedom of speech and expression on university campuses.
The Supreme Court’s ruling now makes clear that disciplinary jurisdiction under the Advocates Act begins only after a law graduate becomes an enrolled advocate, leaving disciplinary oversight of students with their respective educational institutions and administrative authorities.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment