The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a strong rebuke to the Bar Council of India (BCI), ruling that the lawyers’ regulatory body does not have statutory authority to discipline students pursuing legal education.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said disciplinary control over law students rests with the university or educational institution where they are enrolled. The ruling came while hearing the dispute involving students of the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, quashed communications issued by the BCI directing action against the NALSAR students.
What did the Supreme Court say about BCI powers?
The court held that the Advocates Act, 1961, under which the BCI is constituted, does not give the Council either an express or implied power to take disciplinary action against law students.
The Supreme Court clarified that while the BCI has powers to prescribe and enforce standards of legal education in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, those powers do not extend to disciplining students.
The court therefore declared the BCI’s August 13 communication, along with subsequent modified communications concerning the NALSAR students, as having been issued “without jurisdiction.”
It also made absolute its earlier interim order restraining the BCI and state bar councils from taking punitive or criminal action against NALSAR students and faculty members.
How did the NALSAR controversy begin?
The dispute arose after BCI chairman Manan Mishra initially directed state bar councils not to enrol students from the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR.
The action followed a protest by the students over the invitation extended to the Chief Justice of India for their convocation.
The BCI later withdrew the freeze and eventually closed the proceedings against the batch. Mishra subsequently apologised to the students for any hurt caused by his remarks or the Council’s actions.
What does the ruling mean for law students?
The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear distinction between the BCI’s role in regulating legal education and the disciplinary authority of universities.
While the BCI can set standards for legal education, the court made clear that universities and other educational institutions are responsible for taking disciplinary action against their own students according to their applicable rules and procedures.
The judgment is also significant for legal education institutions, as it limits the BCI from extending its regulatory role into areas where it lacks statutory jurisdiction.
