E-Paper
Bar Council has no business disciplining law students, says Supreme Court on NALSAR row
The Supreme Court said it was for institution to take action against students as per norms.
Prefer HTon Google
The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered another rap on the knuckles to the Bar Council of India (BCI), making it clear that the lawyers’ regulatory body has no statutory power or business to discipline students pursuing legal education, and cannot dictate to law universities how they should deal with student conduct.
Quashing the BCI’s communications directing action against students of the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said that disciplinary control over law students rests exclusively with the university or educational institution where they are enrolled.
The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, 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. While the Council can prescribe and enforce standards of legal education in accordance with law and applicable regulations, “it cannot, however, take disciplinary action against a law student.”
Declaring the BCI’s communication of August 13 and all subsequent modified communications against the NALSAR students to have been issued “without jurisdiction”, the bench made absolute its earlier interim order restraining the BCI and state bar councils from taking any punitive or criminal action against NALSAR students and faculty members.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Mihira Sood, represented by senior advocate K Parameshwar, challenging the BCI’s intervention following protests by NALSAR students over the invitation to the CJI as chief guest at their convocation.
The BCI had initially directed all state bar councils not to enrol the 2026 NALSAR graduates “till further orders” and sought an authenticated report from the university identifying students who had initiated, organised or coordinated the campaign. It subsequently modified the direction, saying the “vast majority” of students were innocent, but retained an inquiry into allegations involving some teachers and outsiders. The Council eventually withdrew all its communications.
Parameshwar argued that the issue was not confined to the withdrawn letters but went to the BCI’s jurisdiction to regulate student conduct and academic freedom before enrolment. He also questioned the authority under which the Council had directed a university to conduct an investigation into representations made by its students.
The bench agreed. “As far as the conduct of law students is concerned, the Bar Council of India has neither jurisdiction nor statutory competence. That falls exclusively within the domain of the educational institution or university. There cannot be any dispute about that,” the court said.
Appearing for the BCI, its chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra did not seek to defend the withdrawn communications on merits, but pointed out that the Council had already closed the matter. He told the bench that the decision had been taken at a meeting of the Council and that the original direction was withdrawn the same night, before it was implemented or acted upon. “The Council, in its meeting, has said that there is nothing further and that everything has been resolved,” Mishra said, arguing that nothing survived for adjudication once the communications had been withdrawn.
The bench, however, made it clear that withdrawal of the communications did not answer the larger question of jurisdiction. It drew a clear distinction between a law student and an enrolled advocate. The BCI comes into the picture when a student graduates and seeks enrolment as an advocate. At that stage, it can examine whether the statutory conditions for enrolment have been met. But whether a student should be allowed to continue pursuing legal education is a matter for the university, it added.
“If a law student commits an act involving moral turpitude” and the university nevertheless allows the student to complete the course, the BCI can examine the issue when the student subsequently seeks enrolment, the bench explained. What it cannot do is impose a pre-emptive condition that the student will not be enrolled as an advocate after graduation, the court added.
The ruling assumes significance coming a day after the Supreme Court subjected the functioning of the BCI to a tighter oversight mechanism, directing that the Attorney General for India and Solicitor General be “actively associated” with every policy decision of the Council until it is reconstituted through fresh elections.
The bench had also made it clear that BCI chairman Mishra’s present continuance could not be treated as an arrangement extending until 2030, observing that, prima facie, he was continuing only “pro tem” until a freshly constituted Council elected its office-bearers.
The latest ruling adds a judicial finding of lack of jurisdiction to the court’s earlier criticism of the BCI’s handling of the NALSAR episode.
The controversy began after a section of NALSAR students objected to CJI Kant being invited as chief guest for their convocation. A representation was submitted on July 23 by 70 members of the outgoing LLB batch, with students from other batches subsequently expressing solidarity. The students had cited remarks made by the CJI during proceedings on a plea concerning alleged police excesses during student protests in Delhi.
On August 14, the same bench had come down heavily on the BCI for intervening in the controversy, saying it had “no business” interfering with the students’ right to protest. It had restrained the BCI and all state bar councils from pursuing punitive or criminal action against students and faculty of national law universities in connection with the row. The BCI subsequently withdrew its directions and Mishra apologised to the students for any hurt caused by his words or the Council’s actions.
