The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has no jurisdiction or statutory competence to take disciplinary action against students pursuing legal education before they enrol as advocates.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana held that disciplinary control over law students rests with the university or educational institution where they are enrolled. The ruling came in Mihira Sood and another v. Bar Council of India and others, arising from the BCI’s action against students of NALSAR Hyderabad’s 2026 batch over their campaign opposing the CJI’s invitation as chief guest at their convocation.
The Court declared the BCI’s communication dated August 13, 2026, along with subsequent modified communications, to have been issued without jurisdiction. Since the BCI had already withdrawn its circular against the students, the Bench closed the proceedings.
The Court also made absolute its earlier direction restraining the BCI from taking punitive action against NALSAR, its students or faculty, or any other national law university.
Disciplinary Control Lies With Universities
Examining the scope of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bench found no express or implied authority allowing the BCI to discipline students who are still pursuing legal education.
The Court said the BCI can prescribe and enforce standards of legal education in accordance with the statutory framework and applicable regulations. That regulatory role, however, does not extend to disciplinary proceedings against individual law students.
CJI Surya Kant observed that the BCI’s authority over an individual arises after the law graduate enrols as an advocate. Until then, questions concerning a student’s conduct fall within the exclusive domain of the educational institution or university.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi similarly noted that a university may decide whether a student should be allowed to continue legal education even where the student has been involved in conduct concerning moral turpitude.
The BCI, he said, may examine at the enrolment stage whether the statutory conditions required for admission as an advocate have been fulfilled. It cannot decide in advance that a student pursuing a law degree will be denied enrolment after graduation.
BCI Circular Followed NALSAR Students’ Protest
The dispute arose after NALSAR students wrote to the University opposing CJI Surya Kant’s invitation as chief guest for their convocation. Their objection related to his alleged inaction over claims of police brutality during recent protests at Jantar Mantar.
The students’ representation referred to proceedings on July 22, when a lawyer sought an urgent hearing before a Bench led by the CJI concerning the alleged police excesses. According to the representation, the CJI declined the request for an urgent hearing and also declined to view video material offered by the counsel.
Around 70 students from the outgoing 2026 batch signed the representation. Two days later, approximately 380 students belonging to the 2027 to 2031 batches extended their support.
The BCI subsequently issued a circular barring the entire 2026 NALSAR batch from enrolment as advocates over the campaign against the CJI’s presence at the convocation. It also raised allegations concerning the role of some academic staff in influencing the students.
Within hours, the BCI issued another circular reversing the decision to halt the students’ enrolment. However, it retained its decision to inquire into those allegedly responsible for initiating, organising or mobilising the campaign and sought an inquiry report from NALSAR.
NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Prof Srikrishna Deva Rao thereafter said the University would first examine whether such an inquiry was permissible under its governance regulations.
Following criticism of its actions, the BCI eventually closed the proceedings and informed NALSAR that no further action was required.
CJI Had Earlier Questioned BCI’s Intervention
During an earlier hearing, CJI Surya Kant had questioned why the BCI had intervened in what he described as an issue between the students and himself. He had also acknowledged the students’ right to protest even if their position was considered incorrect and indicated that the BCI had no role in the matter.
The Supreme Court has now formally settled the jurisdictional issue by holding that the BCI cannot exercise disciplinary authority over law students before their enrolment as advocates.
