Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Sept 3: In the face of the Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issuing a dictate against the graduating students of the Hyderabad-based NALSAR law university and withdrawing the same within hours, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the BCI has no jurisdiction or power to initiate any disciplinary or punitive action against law students.
Its disciplinary powers under the Advocates Act, 1961, are limited only to registered advocates, a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ruled on Thursday.
In a rap to the bar council, the bench ruled that the BCI has no power to punish law students and declared that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils lack any statutory or disciplinary jurisdiction over law students prior to their formal enrolment as advocates. Disciplinary control over student conduct rests exclusively with the respective educational institution, according to its own byelaws.
The big remarks from the Supreme Court came during the hearing on a petition filed by two former NALSAR graduates seeking legal action against the Bar Council of India and chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra for its aborted move to ban the professional enrolment of the 2026 batch students over their objection to have the CJI as chief guest for their convocation.
The court formally declared both the BCI’s primary communication and subsequent directives against NALSAR students to be without authority in law and quashed them. Disciplinary powers under the Act apply strictly to registered advocates after they officially join a bar, the bench said.
The dispute arose after the BCI issued orders blocking the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, from enrolment following student protests over the Chief Justice of India’s participation at their convocation. Although the BCI later withdrew the controversial circular, the Supreme Court proceeded to settle the legal question permanently, ruling the intervention was uncalled for and amounted to a violation of free speech.
The petition had said the BCI letters created a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom of association among students. Mr Mishra, who appeared in court, said the letters issued to both NALSAR, directing an enquiry against the students and the State Bar Councils to penalise students by barring them from enrolment as advocates were withdrawn immediately. He said there was no reason for further cause of action. The court declared the letters to be obsolete.
The Supreme Court declared that the directives by the BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on August 13 were issued without any legal authority. The BCI order had called for halting the enrolment of the 2026 batch students at Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law and initiating an inquiry against students and faculty regarding an alleged a campaign against the CJI. Following the outrage, the BCI chairman had withdrawn these directives within about an hour of issuance. He also later apologised to the students for the withdrawn order.
Two alumni of NALSAR, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, had approached the Supreme Court in this matter. Senior Advocate K Parmweshwar, who appeared for the petitioners, argued that even though the orders had been withdrawn, it was necessary to examine under what authority and legal provision the BCI Chairman had issued these directives.
The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, declaring that all relevant communications issued, and subsequently amended, on August 13 were issued “without any authority of law.” Additionally, the interim order protecting students and teachers from punitive action by the BCI or any State Bar Council was made permanent.
The Chief Justice had earlier too rapped the BCI chief asking him why did he interfere in an issue that was between the CJI and the students. CJI Surya Kant had upheld the students’ right to protest. The issue had raised after a group of NALSAR students allegedly protested CJI’s proposed participation in University’s convocation as the chief guest.