New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised the Bar Council of India (BCI). It made it clear that the lawyers’ regulatory body had no statutory power or business to discipline students pursuing legal education. It observed that BCI can’t dictate law universities on how they should deal with student conduct.
The bench headed by CJI Surya Kant quashed the BCI’s communications directing action against students of the 2026, graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. The top court observed that the disciplinary control over law students rests exclusively with the university or educational institution.
The bench also comprised justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, reported HC. It held that the Advocates Act, 1961, under which the BCI is constituted, did not confer on it either an express or implied power to take disciplinary action against students.
The court said the Council can prescribe and enforce standards of legal education in accordance with law and applicable regulations. But “it cannot, however, take disciplinary action against a law student,” the SC bench observed.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Mihira Sood. It was represented by senior advocate K Parameshwar. The plea had challenged the BCI’s intervention following protests by NALSAR students over the invitation to the CJI as chief guest at their convocation.
These developments come amid the NALSAR row that created a major legal and regulatory controversy in August, involving the students of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, the BCI, and the Supreme Court of India.
A group of approximately 70 graduating students from the 2026 batch formally objected to an invitation extended to CJI to attend their convocation as the chief guest.
The students’ campaign was tied to controversial remarks previously made by the CJI during a court hearing regarding police action against protesters. In response to the students’ dissent, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a punitive directive ordering all State Bar Councils to freeze the advocate enrolment of the entire NALSAR 2026 graduating batch. However, Mishra later withdrew the directive and tendered a public apology.
In the top court, BCI chairman and senior advocate, Mishra, appeared for BCI and pointed out that the Council had already closed the matter. “The Council, in its meeting, has said that there is nothing further and that everything has been resolved,” Mishra said, as quoted by HT.
The bench, however, said withdrawal of the communications did not answer the larger question of jurisdiction