Two NALSAR College of Regulation alumni have approached the Supreme Courtroom in search of an enquiry into the style through which Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued letters directing the college to determine college students concerned in a marketing campaign in opposition to the invitation to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to its convocation, and barring enrolment of scholars belonging to the 2026 graduating batch of the college.
The BCI Chairman himself had later withdrawn the orders. The petitioners ask if there was a correct Council assembly authorising the BCI Chairman to problem the instructions.
The petition contends that participation in a pupil marketing campaign isn’t one of many grounds below the Advocates Act, 1961 to disclaim enrolment.
“the Bar Council of India has acted extremely vires the Advocates Act, 1961 by trying to fabricate an extra-statutory disqualification past the strict confines of Part 24A, which lays down the exhaustive checklist of grounds for disqualification. By means of the Impugned Letters, the Bar Council of India is successfully manufacturing one other floor for disqualification – participation in a pupil marketing campaign after which the pendency of a college degree inquiry”, the plea states.
The petition additionally contends that the scholars’ inner illustration regarding the selection of dignitary for the convocation was protected speech below Article 19(1)(a) of the Structure. It contends that the impugned letters create a “chilling impact” on freedom of speech and expression of the scholars.
“A illustration to institutional authorities expressing disagreement with, or in search of reconsideration of, an invite prolonged to a constitutional functionary constitutes protected speech below Article 19(1)(a). Instructions to determine authors/organisers of such a illustration, coupled with the specter of Bar Council “statutory consideration” of their conduct, operates as a chilling impact, deterring future college students and college from expressing dissent via lawful, peaceable, and constitutionally sanctioned means”, it contends.
The plea was mentioned by Senior Advocate Okay Parameshwar earlier than a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana as we speak, and the courtroom issued discover, directing that no punitive motion be taken in opposition to NALSAR college students or school by the BCI or any Bar Council in reference to the incidents referred to within the letters.
Notably, hours after issuance of the primary letter yesterday, a second letter was issued, and BCI withdrew the Chairman’s course to bar enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates.
The primary letter directed NALSAR to furnish inside three days a report figuring out individuals “instrumental in initiating, organising, or mobilising” the marketing campaign regarding the participation of the CJI on the convocation. It additionally sought the entire checklist of pupil signatories and associated minutes or resolutions.
The primary letter additionally directed all State Bar Councils to cease the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026-passed-out college students till additional orders. The second letter permitted their enrolment, stating that the overwhelming majority of scholars have been harmless. Nonetheless, it retained the course to submit a report figuring out individuals concerned and acknowledged that additional motion would comply with receipt of the Vice-Chancellor’s report.
Subsequently, your complete order was withdrawn, together with the course to the college to determine the scholars concerned.
The plea argues that the BCI has no statutory authority to conduct an enquiry into the interior affairs of NALSAR or to control college students’ conduct earlier than their enrolment as advocates.
It states that below Part 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961, State Bar Councils have the ability to confess individuals as advocates on their rolls, and BCI has no jurisdiction over enrolment of advocates.
“Notably, the Advocates Act doesn’t empower the Bar Council of India to determine on issues of admitting of individuals as advocates on the rolls of State Bar Councils. The one restricted function of the Bar Council of India is when the State Bar Council has taken a choice to refuse enrollment and thereafter refers the case to the Bar Council of India”, the plea factors out.
It additionally depends on Part 24A, which units out three grounds for disqualification from enrolment – conviction for an offence involving ethical turpitude, conviction below the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, and dismissal or removing from State employment or workplace on a cost involving ethical turpitude. The petition contends that participation in a pupil marketing campaign or the pendency of a college enquiry isn’t a kind of grounds.
The petition additional argues that Part 7 of the Advocates Act, which units out the BCI’s capabilities, doesn’t confer energy to confess individuals as advocates on State Bar Council rolls. It contends that the BCI’s supervisory powers and powers regarding authorized schooling can’t be used to direct a college to conduct an enquiry into college students’ expression of views.
“no provision of the Advocates Act 1961 or the Bar Council of India’s Guidelines of Authorized Schooling allow the Bar Council of India to problem the Impugned Letters. The supervisory jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India below the Advocates Act 1961 solely extends to “advocates” and to prescribing requirements of authorized schooling. This doesn’t lengthen to regulating college students’ associational or expressive conduct previous to enrolment, nor to directing universities to “inquire” into college students’ conduct”, the plea states.
The plea has sought quashing of each BCI letters, an enquiry into how the letters got here to be issued, and a course restraining the BCI from taking disciplinary, civil or prison motion in opposition to NALSAR college students or school in reference to the matter.
Through the listening to as we speak, CJI Surya Kant strongly disapproved of the BCI’s intervention, remarking that college students have a proper to peacefully protest.
The petition has been filed via Advocate on File Rupali Francesca Samuel.
Case no. – Diary No. – 49499/2026
Case Title – Mihira Sood and anr. v. Bar Council of India and ors.
