The Supreme Court on September 3 ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have no statutory authority to take disciplinary action against law students before they are enrolled as advocates, bringing a legal conclusion to the NALSAR University of Law controversy.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana held that the Advocates Act, 1961, gives neither the BCI nor State Bar Councils any express or implied power to discipline students.
The Court said disciplinary authority over students rests with their parent educational institution or an authority empowered under its regulations or by-laws. It consequently declared the BCI’s August 13 communications against NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch to be without authority of law and made its earlier interim protection against punitive action absolute.
The case arose after students objected to the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant as chief guest at their convocation. The BCI had initially directed State Bar Councils not to enrol the 2026 batch and sought information about students and faculty allegedly involved in the campaign.
The directions were withdrawn within hours, and BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra later announced that the proceedings had been closed altogether, saying the Council was satisfied that the batch had no role in any “disturbance or movement”.
The latest ruling, therefore, is not simply about the withdrawn BCI order; it establishes a broader legal principle on the limits of the Bar Council’s disciplinary powers over students.
Court Draws Clear Line
The Supreme Court’s ruling centres on the distinction between being a law student and being an enrolled advocate. Under the Advocates Act, the BCI has powers relating to the legal profession, including prescribing standards of professional conduct and dealing with professional or other misconduct by advocates.
Section 35, for instance, empowers a State Bar Council to act where an advocate on its roll is alleged to have committed professional or other misconduct. The Court made clear that these professional disciplinary powers cannot be extended to students merely because they are studying law or preparing to enter the profession.
“BCI does not have jurisdiction” over students, the Chief Justice observed during the hearing, adding that once a law graduate is registered as an advocate, the BCI becomes the statutory authority to regulate their professional conduct.
The petitioners, NALSAR alumni Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, had argued that the issue went beyond one university and concerned freedom of speech and expression within an educational institution. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioners, also questioned how the BCI Chairman’s communications had been issued and under what legal provision.
BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, appearing for the Council, argued that the communications had already been withdrawn and requested that the matter be brought to an end. The Court ultimately settled the legal question by holding that disciplinary authority over students belongs to their educational institution, not the Bar Councils.
How NALSAR Row Escalated
The controversy began in July when a section of NALSAR students objected to the proposed invitation of CJI Surya Kant as chief guest for the university’s 2026 convocation. Around 70 students from the graduating batch initially endorsed a representation to the university administration, while support later came from students in other batches as well.
Reports put the broader number of supporters at several hundred. The students’ concerns followed remarks attributed to the CJI during proceedings relating to allegations of police action against protesters. They asked the university to reconsider the proposed invitation, making the matter an internal debate over the choice of a convocation guest.
On August 13, however, the BCI intervened, directing State Bar Councils to halt enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates and seeking details of those allegedly involved in the campaign. The decision prompted widespread criticism.
NALSAR’s alumni were among those who objected, with 441 former students signing an open letter accusing the BCI of disregarding university autonomy and students’ freedom of speech. The BCI subsequently withdrew the enrolment restriction and later closed the proceedings.
Mishra also apologised to students, saying he regretted any words or letters that may have hurt their feelings and acknowledging the “concern and anguish” caused among the student community.
The Supreme Court’s intervention followed a petition by two NALSAR alumni, with the Court on August 14 already protecting students and faculty from punitive action by the BCI or State Bar Councils.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Supreme Court’s decision is an important reminder that institutional power must remain within the limits prescribed by law. Law students should certainly be accountable for misconduct, but accountability must come through a fair and legally recognised process rather than through the threat of professional consequences before they have even entered the profession.
At the same time, disagreement with a constitutional authority does not have to become a confrontation. Universities, students and public institutions can and should create space for disagreement, listening and dialogue without allowing differences of opinion to become personal or punitive battles.
Also read: Raghav Chadha Alleges AAP Vendetta After His Name Marked ‘Shifted’ in Punjab Draft Electoral Roll
