The Supreme Court has ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils cannot take disciplinary action against law students before they formally enrol as advocates. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the Advocates Act, 1961, does not give the BCI or State Bar Councils any express or implied authority to regulate the conduct of students studying law. The bench, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, clarified that the Bar Council’s statutory powers begin only after a law graduate registers as an advocate. Until then, the student’s educational institution remains responsible for handling disciplinary matters.
Also read:Mumbai Street Food Gets a Hygiene Makeover, Viral Video Highlights Major Changes
SC Clarifies Bar Council’s Powers Over Law Students
The court delivered the ruling while examining the controversy involving students of NALSAR University of Law. A group of students had opposed the university’s decision to invite CJI Surya Kant to its annual convocation. Following the students’ opposition, BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a directive on August 13 asking State Bar Councils not to enrol members of NALSAR’s 2026 batch who had taken the position against the CJI’s invitation. The BCI withdrew the directive within hours, saying it had concluded that the students had not participated in any disturbance or movement. The Supreme Court, however, held that the BCI’s communications lacked legal authority and declared them “bad in law”.
During the hearing, senior advocate K Parameshwar, representing two former NALSAR students, argued that the case raised important questions about freedom of speech and expression on university campuses. He questioned the legal basis for the BCI’s intervention and asked the court to examine the circumstances in which the authority issued its directive. Parameshwar also pointed to an earlier Supreme Court judgment dealing with the BCI’s jurisdiction over law students before enrolment. Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed with the argument and said the BCI has no statutory jurisdiction over student conduct. He observed that disciplinary matters involving students fall exclusively within the authority of their educational institutions and the rules governing those institutions.
Also read:Mirzapur Movie Creates Unexpected Box Office Buzz
University, Not Bar Council, Handles Student Discipline
The bench also examined whether the BCI could consider a student’s conduct at the time of enrolment as an advocate. Justice Joymalya Bagchi drew a distinction between regulating student behaviour during legal education and checking eligibility for enrolment after graduation. He noted that the BCI can examine whether a graduate meets the conditions prescribed under the Advocates Act when the person applies for enrolment. However, the Bar Council cannot impose a pre-emptive ban on enrolment while the person remains a law student. Justice Bagchi said the BCI could act when a graduate actually seeks enrolment, but it could not exercise control over the student’s behaviour before that stage.
BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra told the court that the matter had already been closed and urged the bench to put an end to the proceedings. The judges, however, stressed the need to settle the legal position so that similar disputes do not arise in the future. The bench noted that the BCI’s withdrawal of its directive indicated that the authority had recognised its mistake. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the BCI’s August 13 communications had no legal basis. The ruling establishes a clear distinction between the BCI’s role in regulating the legal profession and the authority of universities to govern student conduct before enrolment.
Also read:Property Dealer Gunned Down Outside Delhi Gym; Assailants Flee