The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have no statutory authority to take disciplinary action against law students before they are enrolled as advocates.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana delivered the ruling while hearing a petition arising from the BCI’s now-withdrawn directions against the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.
The Court made clear that disciplinary control over students rests with their university or the authority empowered under its regulations and byelaws.
Background of the Case
The controversy began after NALSAR students submitted a representation opposing the invitation extended to CJI Surya Kant as chief guest for their convocation. The representation referred to the students’ concerns over the handling of allegations relating to police action during protests.
Following the campaign, the BCI issued communications on August 13, 2026, directing that enrolment of the university’s 2026 graduating batch be stopped and seeking information regarding students and faculty allegedly involved in the campaign.
The BCI subsequently withdrew the directions. Two NALSAR alumni, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, nevertheless approached the Supreme Court questioning the authority under which the communications had been issued.
Court’s Observation
Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the matter concerned freedom of speech and expression within a university and sought clarity on the BCI’s power to regulate students before enrolment.
The BCI Chairman, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, submitted that the communications had already been withdrawn and the issue stood resolved.
The Chief Justice agreed that the BCI’s disciplinary jurisdiction begins only after a law graduate is enrolled as an advocate.
The Court’s order stated:
“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.”
Justice Bagchi also clarified that while the BCI can examine eligibility at the stage of enrolment, it cannot decide in advance whether a student should be permitted to continue legal education.
Decision
The Supreme Court declared the BCI’s August 13 communication and subsequent modified communications to have been issued without jurisdiction.
The Court further made its earlier interim protection against punitive action by the BCI or any State Bar Council absolute and disposed of the petition.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mihira Sood and another v. Bar Council of India and others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1040/2026
Judges: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Decision Date: September 3, 2026
-300x169.webp)
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
