The Supreme Court docket on Thursday delivered one other rap on the knuckles to the Bar Council of India (BCI), making it clear that the attorneys’ regulatory physique has no statutory energy or enterprise to self-discipline college students pursuing authorized schooling, and can’t dictate to regulation universities how they need to cope with pupil conduct.
Quashing the BCI’s communications directing motion towards college students of the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR College of Legislation, Hyderabad, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant mentioned that disciplinary management over regulation college students rests completely with the college or academic establishment the place they’re enrolled.
Supreme Court docket says BCI can’t self-discipline regulation college students
The bench, additionally comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, held that the Advocates Act, 1961, underneath which the BCI is constituted, didn’t confer on it both an categorical or implied energy to take disciplinary motion towards college students. Whereas the Council can prescribe and implement requirements of authorized schooling in accordance with regulation and relevant rules, “it can’t, nonetheless, take disciplinary motion towards a regulation pupil.”
ALSO READ | Justice Nagarathna calls for Bar introspection amid NALSAR controversy
Declaring the BCI’s communication of August 13 and all subsequent modified communications towards the NALSAR college students to have been issued “with out jurisdiction”, the bench made absolute its earlier interim order restraining the BCI and state bar councils from taking any punitive or prison motion towards NALSAR college students and school members.
Case arose from NALSAR college students’ protest
The ruling got here on a petition filed by Mihira Sood, represented by senior advocate Ok Parameshwar, difficult the BCI’s intervention following protests by NALSAR college students over the invitation to the CJI as chief visitor at their convocation.
The BCI had initially directed all state bar councils to not enrol the 2026 NALSAR graduates “until additional orders” and sought an authenticated report from the college figuring out college students who had initiated, organised or coordinated the marketing campaign. It subsequently modified the route, saying the “overwhelming majority” of scholars had been harmless, however retained an inquiry into allegations involving some academics and outsiders. The Council ultimately withdrew all its communications.
Parameshwar argued that the problem was not confined to the withdrawn letters however went to the BCI’s jurisdiction to manage pupil conduct and tutorial freedom earlier than enrolment. He additionally questioned the authority underneath which the Council had directed a college to conduct an investigation into representations made by its college students.
Court docket attracts line between college students and enrolled advocates
The bench agreed. “So far as the conduct of regulation college students is anxious, the Bar Council of India has neither jurisdiction nor statutory competence. That falls completely inside the area of the academic establishment or college. There can’t be any dispute about that,” the court docket mentioned.
Showing for the BCI, its chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra didn’t search to defend the withdrawn communications on deserves, however identified that the Council had already closed the matter. He advised the bench that the choice had been taken at a gathering of the Council and that the unique route was withdrawn the identical evening, earlier than it was applied or acted upon. “The Council, in its assembly, has mentioned that there’s nothing additional and that every thing has been resolved,” Mishra mentioned, arguing that nothing survived for adjudication as soon as the communications had been withdrawn.
The bench, nonetheless, made it clear that withdrawal of the communications didn’t reply the bigger query of jurisdiction. It drew a transparent distinction between a regulation pupil and an enrolled advocate. The BCI comes into the image when a pupil graduates and seeks enrolment as an advocate. At that stage, it will probably study whether or not the statutory circumstances for enrolment have been met. However whether or not a pupil needs to be allowed to proceed pursuing authorized schooling is a matter for the college, it added.
ALSO READ | ‘Between me and students’: CJI Surya Kant slams Bar Council move against protesters
“If a regulation pupil commits an act involving ethical turpitude” and the college nonetheless permits the coed to finish the course, the BCI can study the problem when the coed subsequently seeks enrolment, the bench defined. What it can’t do is impose a pre-emptive situation that the coed is not going to be enrolled as an advocate after commencement, the court docket added.
Supreme Court docket’s newest scrutiny of BCI
The ruling assumes significance coming a day after the Supreme Court docket subjected the functioning of the BCI to a tighter oversight mechanism, directing that the Lawyer Common for India and Solicitor Common be “actively related” with each coverage determination of the Council till it’s reconstituted by recent elections.
ALSO READ | ‘Strongly reconsider’: Hyderabad law university students object to CJI Surya Kant’s invite for convocation
The bench had additionally made it clear that BCI chairman Mishra’s current continuance couldn’t be handled as an association extending till 2030, observing that, prima facie, he was persevering with solely “professional tem” till a freshly constituted Council elected its office-bearers.
The newest ruling provides a judicial discovering of lack of jurisdiction to the court docket’s earlier criticism of the BCI’s dealing with of the NALSAR episode.
How the NALSAR controversy started
The controversy started after a bit of NALSAR college students objected to CJI Kant being invited as chief visitor for his or her convocation.
A illustration was submitted on July 23 by 70 members of the outgoing LLB batch, with college students from different batches subsequently expressing solidarity. The scholars had cited remarks made by the CJI throughout proceedings on a plea regarding alleged police excesses throughout pupil protests in Delhi.
On August 14, the identical bench had come down closely on the BCI for intervening within the controversy, saying it had “no enterprise” interfering with the scholars’ proper to protest. It had restrained the BCI and all state bar councils from pursuing punitive or prison motion towards college students and school of nationwide regulation universities in reference to the row. The BCI subsequently withdrew its instructions and Mishra apologised to the scholars for any harm brought on by his phrases or the Council’s actions.
