The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have no statutory authority to initiate disciplinary action against law students, clarifying that their regulatory and disciplinary control begins only after a law graduate is enrolled as an advocate.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said disciplinary jurisdiction over students lies exclusively with their parent educational institution or the authority prescribed under the regulations or byelaws governing such institution.
Applying this principle, the Court declared as being without authority of law the directions issued by BCI Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra on August 13, which had sought to bar the enrolment of the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, and called for an inquiry against students and faculty members over their campaign against the Chief Justice of India. The directions were subsequently withdrawn by the BCI Chairman following public backlash.
The Bench was hearing a writ petition filed by NALSAR alumni Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari challenging the directions.
On August 14, the Supreme Court had expressed disapproval of the BCI Chairman’s actions and passed an interim order protecting NALSAR students and faculty from any punitive action by the BCI or State Bar Councils. On Thursday, the Court disposed of the petition and made the interim protection absolute.
Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the withdrawal of the directions did not bring the matter to an end, as questions remained regarding the circumstances in which such an order was issued. He submitted that the case isn’t just about one student, it’s about an entire university’s right to free expression
Parameshwar further sought accountability from the BCI, questioning under what authority and provision of law the directions had been issued. He stressed that the BCI had no jurisdiction over law students and could regulate their conduct only after they were enrolled as advocates.
Mishra, however, told the Court that the directions had been withdrawn within an hour of their issuance and urged the Bench to put the matter to “quietus”.
Agreeing with the petitioners’ main argument, the Chief Justice affirmed that the Bar Council of India lacks jurisdiction over students. He emphasized that while the BCI is the statutory authority responsible for regulating conduct once a law graduate registers as an advocate, its authority does not extend to law students.
Dictating its order, the Court held that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not confer any express or implied power on the BCI or State Bar Councils to take disciplinary action against law students. Such power, it said, arises only after a law graduate is registered as an advocate.
The Court clarified that disciplinary authority over students rests solely with their parent institution or the relevant governing body established by its regulations and byelaws.
The Bench consequently declared the August 13 communications, as well as the subsequent modified communication, to be without any authority of law and made its interim directions absolute.
The post BCI has no disciplinary jurisdiction over law students before enrolment: Supreme Court quashes NALSAR directions appeared first on India Legal.