BCI lacks authority to discipline law students before advocate enrollment: SC

The Supreme Court has held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have no statutory power to discipline law students, ruling that their disciplinary jurisdiction begins only after a law graduate is enrolled as an advocate.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said disciplinary action against students falls within the jurisdiction of their parent institutions or authorities designated under their respective regulations and bylaws.

“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/bylaws of such institution who alone are competent to take disciplinary action," the bench said.

The ruling came while the court considered a writ petition filed by NALSAR University of Law alumni Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari. The petition challenged directions issued by BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on Aug 13 concerning the university's 2026 graduating batch.

The directions had sought to prevent the enrollment of the batch and called for an inquiry into students and faculty members over their campaign against the Chief Justice of India. The BCI subsequently withdrew the directions following public criticism.

The Supreme Court, applying its interpretation of the Advocates Act, declared the Aug 13 communications, along with any later modified versions, “without any authority of law."

The bench also made permanent its earlier interim protection, preventing the BCI and State Bar Councils from taking punitive action against NALSAR students and faculty members. It subsequently disposed of the petition.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate K Parameshwar said the case involved broader concerns regarding freedom of speech and expression on university campuses. He also sought accountability over the BCI's actions.

“This is a question of freedom of speech and expression in a university… It is not about just one student,” he submitted, seeking clarity on the legal basis and process through which the directions were issued.

Mishra, who appeared as senior counsel for the BCI, said the directions had been withdrawn within an hour and asked the court to bring the proceedings to an end. He said the Council had decided that there was no further issue to pursue.

The Chief Justice endorsed the petitioners' central argument and clarified that the BCI's statutory regulatory authority applies once a law graduate is registered as an advocate.

“The BCI does not have jurisdiction over students… once a law graduate gets registered as an advocate, then BCI is the statutory authority to regulate conduct. But not of students,” the bench underscored.

The ruling follows a separate Supreme Court proceeding on Wednesday in which the court said BCI Chairperson Mishra's position was only “pro tem” until a newly constituted body elects its office-bearers. The court also directed that all policy decisions of the Council must involve the Attorney General and Solicitor General.