NALSAR controversy: SC says BCI has no statutory power to regulate conduct of law students, quashes two notifications | Today’s news

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and state bar councils have no legal authority to regulate the conduct of law students, PTI reported. The court said that educational institutions are responsible for taking disciplinary action against students as per the relevant rules and regulations.

The Supreme Court quashed two notifications issued by the BCI in connection with the NALSAR controversy, even as the board withdrew both the orders within hours following widespread criticism.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohan gave the decision while hearing a dispute arising out of a suit filed by BCI against students of Hyderabad NALSAR University of Law.

“The BCI has no jurisdiction… after someone passes out… once a law graduate is enrolled as an advocate, then the BCI is a statutory body to regulate conduct. But not students,” Kant said.

The controversy arose after students protested Kant’s proposed participation in the university’s convocation ceremony.

“We are of the view that the Advocates Act, 1961, under which the BCI was statutorily created, does not confer any express or implied power on the BCI or any State Bar Council to take any disciplinary action against law students,” it said.

Read also | Who is Manan Kumar Mishra? BCI Chairman at NALSAR Convocation Series Center

“Such powers are preceded by the registration of a law graduate as a lawyer under the aforementioned law. As for students, it is their parent institution or a body established by the regulations/opinions of such an institution that is the only one competent to conduct disciplinary proceedings,” the court said in its ruling.

NALSAR row: What did the court say on the BCI notice?

Disposing of petitions filed by NALSAR alumni Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, the court held that the BCI’s August 13 notices, including subsequent amendments, had no legal force and upheld its earlier interim directions.

Read also | ‘BCI’s interests are same as theirs’: CJP’s Manan Mishra Dipke, Saurav Das

“We declare the entire August 13 communication or subsequent modified communication to be without any authority of law. The interim directions are absolute,” the bench observed.

“Everything has already been closed”: BCI chief

They challenged BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s August 13 directives temporarily barring NALSAR students from enrolling as advocates and called for an inquiry into the matter.

Following public criticism, the BCI chairman withdrew the memo within hours of its release.

Read also | NALSAR students urge the university not to invite the CJI as the chief guest for the convocation

During the hearing, senior advocate K Parameshwar, representing the law students, argued that the withdrawal does not obviate the need to probe how the directions were issued. He insisted that the petition therefore remains relevant.

Parameshwar said the matter is about freedom of speech and expression at the university and has ramifications beyond the individual student, as the action could affect freedom of expression across the institution.

Appearing for the BCI, senior advocate and its chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said the communication was withdrawn within an hour of its issue and argued that the matter should now be closed.

“We want to know under what circumstances these orders were passed and whether meetings were held. After all, this is a statutory body responsible for legal education and for regulating the legal profession,” PTI quoted Parameshwara as saying.

Mishra said, “Everything has already been closed. The council (bar) in its meeting said that there is nothing left and that everything has been settled. The letter was immediately withdrawn.”

The dispute began on August 14 after the BCI directed the Bar Councils to hold the enrollment of NALSAR 2026 graduates as advocates until further orders. The directive followed allegations surrounding a campaign by students opposing Chief Justice Surya Kant’s proposed visit to the university.

When the matter was previously taken up in the Supreme Court, CJI Kant strongly objected to the BCI’s intervention, questioning its authority to interfere in what he described as a matter of dialogue between the students and himself.