BCI cannot act against law students, orders SC
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State bar councils have no statutory power to regulate the conduct of law students, saying it was for educational institutions to take action against students in accordance with their own regulatory norms.
“We are of the opinion that the Advocates Act, 1961, whereunder the BCI has been statutorily created, does not confer any express or implied power upon the BCI or any State Bar Council to take any disciplinary action against the students of law… Such a power is preceded by registration of a law graduate as an advocate under the said Act. So far as students are concerned, it is their parent institution or the authority prescribed under the regulations/byelaws of such institution which alone are competent to take disciplinary action,” a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana ordered.
The SC passed the order while dealing with the controversy arising out of the BCI’s action against students of Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law over their objections to the CJI’s proposed participation in the university’s convocation.
It set aside two notifications issued by the BCI in connection with the NALSAR row, even though both were withdrawn within hours of their issuance following widespread criticism.
“We declare all communications dated August 13 or subsequent modified communication to be without any authority of law. Interim directions made absolute,” the Bench said while disposing of the plea filed by two NALSAR alumni, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari.
They had challenged the BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s directions issued on August 13 that NALSAR students be not enrolled as advocates for the time being and an enquiry be held into the entire episode. However, after public outrage, the BCI chairperson withdrew the communications within hours of their issuance.
During the hearing, senior advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for the law students, said though the BCI chairman’s directions were withdrawn, there needs to be an inquiry into the manner in which they were issued, to that extent, the petition survived, he said.
“This is a question of freedom of speech and expression in a university. It is not about just one student. It is about banning freedom of speech and expression across an entire university,” he said.
Senior advocate and BCI chairperson Mishra said the letters were withdrawn within one hour of their issuance and now the matter be put to quietus.
“We want to know the circumstances in which these orders came to be passed and whether meetings were held. This is, after all, a statutory authority responsible for legal education and for regulating the legal profession,” Parameshwar said.
“Everything has already been closed. The (Bar) Council, in its meeting, has said that there is nothing further and that everything has been resolved. The letter was immediately withdrawn,” the BCI head said.
“The BCI does not have jurisdiction...after someone passes out...once a law graduate gets registered as an advocate, then BCI is statutory authority to regulate conduct. But not of students,” the CJI said.
The controversy had erupted on August 14 after the BCI directed state bar councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates as advocates until further orders over allegations relating to a campaign against CJI Kant’s proposed visit to the university.
When the matter was mentioned earlier before the Supreme Court, the CJI had strongly disapproved of the BCI’s intervention, saying, “It’s a dialogue between students and me. Who are they (BCI) to interfere? This is totally uncalled for”.
