Bar Council has no power to discipline law students before enrollment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday rapped the Bar Council of India (BCI), saying that the lawyers’ regulatory body has no statutory power or business to discipline law students, nor can it dictate law universities on how they should deal with the conduct of students. The ruling came on a petition filed by Mihira Sood challenging the BCI’s intervention following protests by NALSAR students over the invite to the CJI as chief guest at their convocation.

The Supreme Court held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have no power to take disciplinary action against law students before they are enrolled as lawyers and stated that such matters fall exclusively within the domain of their educational institutions.

“We are of the opinion that the Advocates Act, 1961, where under 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,” said a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

Also Read: India ready to help end Russia-Ukraine war, says EAM Jaishankar during Kyiv visit

“So far as students are concerned, it is their parent institution or the authority prescribed under the regulations/bye laws of such institution who alone are competent to take disciplinary action,” said the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.

The bench made the observation while declaring that all communications issued by the BCI on August 13 after some NALSAR University of Law students opposed the invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to the university’s annual convocation, stating they were “without any authority of law”.

NALSAR students had cited remarks made by the CJI during proceedings on a plea concerning alleged police excesses during Cockroach Janta Party-led student protests in Delhi.

Also Read: Putin signals openness to Ukraine deal, thanks US and China for peace efforts

BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had issued the directive on August 13, asking state Bar councils not to enroll students of NALSAR’s 2026 batch who took the stand against the CJI attending the event. The directive was withdrawn within hours, with the BCI stating that it had closed the proceedings after concluding that the students had “no role in any disturbance or movement”.

Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, who appeared for the former NALSAR students on Thursday, said the matter involved 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.

“We want to know under what circumstances those orders were passed and whether meetings were held. After all, it’s a statutory authority responsible for legal education and for regulating the legal profession,” Parameshwar said.

“We would like to know under what provision of law this was done. After all, they must be held accountable in some fashion,” the senior counsel said.

Also Read: EU and NATO step up pressure on Russia after Germany ‘escalation incidents’

One cannot expect everyone to act responsibly: CJI Surya Kant

CJI Kant said one cannot expect everyone to act responsibly. “We have no doubt about it that the very fact that it was withdrawn means that there must be some realisation that a mistake, if not a blunder, was committed that has been rectified.”

“As far as the conduct of the law students is concerned, BCI has no jurisdiction. That’s an exclusive domain of the educational institution. There cannot be any dispute on that,” the CJI said.

Also Read: Trump suggests renaming Strait of Hormuz to ‘Trump Strait’

‘Matter should be given a quietus,’ says Mishra

BCI’s Mishra said, “everything has been closed," and asked, “should everything…be adjudicated?” He submitted that the “matter should be given a quietus.”

Justice Bagchi then said that the legal position needs to be clarified lest a similar situation arise in the future.

“Let us say a student indulges in an act of moral turpitude and is disqualified as per the Advocates Act, 1961, to enrol. But the university permits him to pursue his education. You can definitely, at the time of enrolment, examine the conditions precedent for enrolment, but to put an injunction that I will not enrol you…it is getting beyond.”

“That is why it was never implemented and was withdrawn the same night,” Mishra said.

Justice Bagchi said the question is “whether BCI can exercise control over student behaviour before the student actually attains the qualification to become an advocate”.

“You can always stop him when he makes an application. That’s a different thing,” Justice Bagchi said.